Medieval Kingdoms Total War: Kingdom of Sweden

[Slytacular]

Awesome! This is a lot of help!

[Kjertesvein]

Happy to help.

~Wille

[uzo70]

I won't be able to do any info even close to Kjertesvein, but here is a couple of books by David Lindholm and David Nicolle, it is really good reading and got some nice illustrations

The Scandinavian Baltic Crusades 1100-1500
Medieval Scandinavian Armies 1 1100-1300
Medieval Scandinavian Armies 2 1300-1500

They are very nice books and if you like scandinavian medieval history or just medieval history in general they are a good investment.

How late are you going to go time wise, because there is some Houndskull and Klappvisor helmets in game wich would be ca. 1350 and if you going to very late like 14xx are you going to split the time periods as they did in Medieval 2 with early-high-late ?

as an extra question, since i am not sure, but wasn't Roskilde bigger than Lödöse at this time ?

[Slytacular]

Bascially, Tier 1 = 1212A.D. to 1350A.D. (High Medieval Era), Tier 2 = 1350 to 1420 (Transitional Era), Tier 3 = 1420 to 1500 (Late Medieval Ages). Campaign simulates start time and politics at 1212A.D. and the future is alternate history.

[+Marius+]

-wealther knights from other European states would still not use that kind of heavy armour on superior horses

On what do you base that?

For instance, the chronicle of Roger of Howden, an officer in the service of king Richard I, states that in the battle of Gisors, 140 out of 200 horses captured were covered with mail barding, that is about 70% of the captured warhorses while others might as well been covered in cloth/linen barding but not mentioned as it was usual.

That battle was over a decade before the mods start date.

[Pinarius]

Three Tiers is great, but I'd love to have four (one between Tier 1 and Tier 2), like: 1212 - 1290 / 1290 - 1360 / 1360 - 1430 / 1430 - 1500

[Kjertesvein]

Primary source material on the units, education of a Norwegian prince and a few thoughts on Scandinavian knights.

It can be useful to glance over some of available normative sources every now and then when you're in need of inspiration about a particular subject or for unit descriptions later on. For example, after reading it you'll notice by law, every man from commoner to prince were required to own a bow or crossbow. It's not to say it's comparable to English Longbow Law by any stretch of the imagination, but the possibility for a hybrid unit is there if you want something edgy.

The units of the Hird

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

King's guard

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Those who are in the king's escort shall wear on that day their finest clothes and bear those weapons which in the eyes of other men are a credit to both the king and to themselves."

" The men of the escort shall (each) be equipped with an attractive steel cap, a good shield, and a fully serviceable sword supplied with all of the fine accouterments, or an exceptionally good axe. The escort is not to be provided for the sake of amusement, but rather to furnish reliable protection for the king. "

"In time of peace the men on guard duty shall have these weapons: a sword and a buckler, a steel cap and a spear. But in time of war they shall be fully armed. "

Hirdlaw, 1260

Knights

Minimum: Gambeson, full mail, a helmet, swords, spear, sturdy shield, and a coat of plates. Buckler, bow and crossbow are optional.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Therefor let all men know that the liegemen are to have the following weapons. It behooves the land-holders and stewards to surpass others to such an extent in the number of weapons they own as they surpass them with regard to distinctions and subsidies received from the king. And each knight shall own a complete set of armour. That consists first of all of a spaldinier or an armoured shirt, a mail hood and a mail shirt, together with mail stockings and mail gauntlests, a helmet or steel cap, a sword, a spear, a sturdy shield, and a breastplate (coat of plates). A buckler is also quite useful, and no less so a bow or a crossbow. "

Hirdlaw, 1260

Hirdmen

Minimum: Gambeson, and either mail and/or aketon (sleeveless) to wear over that, a helmet, a shield, spear, buckler, and a bow.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"[...]hirdman means the same as keeper and guardian; and those who wish to possess this title rightfully should be true keepers and guardians both of the king's person and of all his kingship. They should guard the bounds of equity among all the men of the realm, wherever they are present when suits at law are heard. They should also observe good and courtly behavior and every useful custom, for they are at all times nearest the king in all matters. They guard the king's life and person both night and day; they are always about the king at the table when he eats and drinks, at public assemblies, and at all general gatherings, like near kinsmen.


These men ought of right to be addressed as lords by all men who bear lesser titles than they do; for they are, in a sense, stewards of the realm[...]"

King's Mirror 1250


"Therefor let all men know that the liegemen are to have the following weapons. It behooves the land-holders and stewards to surpass others to such an extent in the number of weapons they own as they surpass them with regard to distinctions and subsidies received from the king. [...] A hird man shall own an armour shirt (textile armor) also, and over that a panzer (double textile armor) or a mail shirt. He shall own a steel cap, a good shield, a spear, a buckler, and a bow with three dozen arrows. "

Hirdlaw, 1260

Guests


Minimum: Gambeson, steel cap, shield, sword, spear and a bow.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"There are certain other housecarles at the king's court, who, in addition to the housecarle's title, have a by-name and are called "Guests." (ON: Gjester) They have this name from their manifold duties; for they visit the homes of many, though not always with friendly intent. These men are also in the king's pay and get half the wages of "hirdmen." These are the duties that belong to the office of these men: they serve as spies throughout the king's domain to make sure whether he has any enemies in his kingdom; and if such are found, the guests are to slay them, if they are able to do so. But if the king sends his guests upon his enemies and those against whom they are sent are slain, they are to have for their trouble as much of the enemies' wealth as they can carry away at the time, only no gold, for that is the king's, as is all the rest that the guests are unable to bring away. And whenever the king becomes aware of an enemy, it is the guest's duty to pursue the foeman and thus to cleanse the realm. When-ever they are present at court, they keep the various watches about the king, lust as the others do who share the king's bounty in the royal garth, except the head-ward (King's Guard); this they do not keep; nor do they sit at table to eat or drink in the house where the king dines with his hirdmen, except at Christmas and Easter, when they are to eat with the hirdmen in the king's hall, but at no other time. If any of these men be slain in single combat, the king exacts as large a fine both in thegn money and housecarle fine as for the death of those whom we discussed earlier."

King's Mirror

"Therefor let all men know that the liegemen are to have the following weapons. It behooves the land-holders and stewards to surpass others to such an extent in the number of weapons they own as they surpass them with regard to distinctions and subsidies received from the king. [...] The guests are to own a strong armour shirt, a steel cap, a shield, a sword, a spear, and a bow with two dozen arrows. "

Hirdlaw, 1260

Squire


Minimum: Gambeson, steel cap, shield, sword, spear and a bow.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Therefor let all men know that the liegemen are to have the following weapons. It behooves the land-holders and stewards to surpass others to such an extent in the number of weapons they own as they surpass them with regard to distinctions and subsidies recieved from the king. [...] to own a strong armour shirt, a steel cap, a shield, a sword, a spear, and a bow with two dozen arrows. "

Hirdlaw, 1260

---

King's Mirror

Excerpts from the King's Mirror in regards to tactics and training. Initially meant as an educational text for the Norwegian prince in 1250-60, but as the preface note "one that should profit every man who intends to follow the craft".

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

On riding and weapons training

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now if your comrades are planning to go from the king's apartments to some drinking bout or other merrymaking, and you, too, have the king's permission to seek diversion, you should prefer the forms of amusement which I shall now point out to you. If you are sojourning where horses may be ridden and you have your own horse, put on heavy armor and, mounting your horse, train yourself in the art of sitting on horseback in the firmest and most handsome manner. Train yourself to press the foot firmly into the stirrup; keep your leg stiff and the heel a little lower than the toes, except when you have to guard against thrusts from the front; and practice sitting firmly with the thighs pressed close. Cover your breast and limbs carefully with a curved shield. Train your left hand to grasp firmly the bridle and the grip of the shield, and your right hand to direct the spear-thrust so that all your bodily strength will support it. Train your good steed to veer about when in full gallop; keep him clean and in good condition; keep him shod firmly and well, and provide him with a strong and handsome harness.


But if you are in a borough (settlement) or some such place where horses cannot be used for recreation, you should take up this form of amusement: go to your chambers and put on heavy armor; next look up some fellow henchman (he may be a native or an alien) who likes to drill with you and whom you know to be well trained to fight behind a shield or a buckler. Always bring heavy armor to this exercise, either chain-mail or a thick gambison, and carry a heavy sword and a weighty shield or buckler in your hand. In this game you should strive to learn suitable thrusts and such counterstrokes as are good, necessary, and convenient. Learn precisely how to cover yourself with the shield, so that you may be able to guard well when you have to deal with a foeman. If you feel that it is important to be well trained in these activities, go through the exercise twice a day, if it is convenient; but let no day pass, except holidays, without practicing this drill at least once; for it is counted proper for all kingsmen to master this art and, moreover, it must be mastered if it is to be of service. If the drill tires you and makes you thirsty, drink a little now and then, enough to quench your thirst; but while the game is on, be careful not to drink till you are drunk or even merry.


If you should like to try a variety of drills and pastimes, there are certain sports that one can take up out of doors, if that is thought more diverting. For one thing, you may have a pole prepared, somewhat heavier than a spear shaft, and put up a mark some distance away for a target; with these you can determine how far and how accurately you can throw a spear and do it effectively. It is also counted rare sport and pastime to take one's bow and go with other men to practice archery. Another pleasant and useful diversion is to practice throwing with a sling both for distance and for accuracy, and with a staff sling as well as with a hand sling, and to practice throwing stone missiles. Formerly the custom was for all who wished to become expert in such arts and thoroughly proficient in war and chivalry to train both hands alike to the use of weapons. Strive after the same skill, if you find yourself gifted for it, inasmuch as those who are trained in that way are the most perfect in these activities and the most dangerous to their enemies.

On moral conduct in battle

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You should abhor and avoid manslaying in every form except as a lawful punishment or in common warfare. But in ordinary warfare on the lawful command of your chief, you need to shun manslaying no more than any other deed which you know to be right and good. Show courage and bravery in battle; fight with proper and effective blows, such as you have already learned, as if in the best of humor, though filled with noble wrath. Never fight with feigned strokes, needless thrusts, or uncertain shots like a frightened man. Heed these things well that you may be able to match your opponent's skill in fighting. Be resolute in combat but not hot-headed and least of all boastful. Always remember that there may be those who can give good testimony in your behalf; but never praise your own deeds, lest after a time it should come to pass that you are pursued for the slaughter of men whose death is rated a great loss and the revenge is directed toward you by your own words.

On fighting on land and sea

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you are fighting on foot in a land battle and are placed at the point of a wedge-shaped column, it is very important to watch the closed shield line in the first onset, lest it become disarranged or broken. Take heed never to bind the front edge of your shield under that of another. You must also be specially careful, when in the battle line, never to throw your spear, unless you have two, for in battle array on land one spear is more effective than two swords. But if the fight is on shipboard, select two spears which are not to be thrown, one with a shaft long enough to reach easily from ship to ship and one with a shorter shaft, which you will find particularly serviceable when you try to board the enemy's ship. Various kinds of darts should be kept on ships, both heavy javelins and lighter ones. Try to strike your opponent's shield with a heavy javelin, and if the shield glides aside, attack him with a light javelin, unless you are able to reach him with a long-shafted spear. Fight on sea as on land with an even temper and with proper strokes only; and never waste your weapons by hurling them to no purpose.


Weapons of many sorts may be used to advantage on shipboard, which one has no occasion to use on land, except in a fortress or castle. Longhandled scythes and long-shafted broadaxes, "war-beams "and staff slings, darts,: and missiles of every sort are serviceable on ships. Crossbows and longbows are useful as well as all other forms of shooting weapons; but coal and sulphur are, however, the most effective munitions of all that I have named. Caltrops cast in lead and good halberds are also effective weapons on shipboard. A tower joined to the mast will be serviceable along with these and many other defenses, as is also a beam cloven into four parts and set with prongs of hard steel, which is drawn up against the mast. A "prow-boar": with an ironclad snout is also useful in naval battles. But it is well for men to be carefully trained in handling these before they have to use them; for one knows neither the time nor the hour when he shall have to make use of any particular kind of weapons. But take good heed to collect as many types of weapons as possible, while you still have no need of them; for it is always a distinction to have good weapons, and, furthermore, they are a good possession in times of necessity when one has to use them. For a ship's defense the following arrangement is necessary: it should be fortified strongly with beams and logs built up into a high rampart, through which there should be four openings, each so large and wide that one or two men in full armor can leap through them; but outside and along the rampart on both sides of the ship there should he laid a level walk of planks to stand upon. This breastwork must be firmly and carefully braced so that it cannot be shaken though one leaps violently upon it. Wide shields and chain mail of every sort are good defensive weapons on shipboard; the chief protection, however, is the gambison made of soft linen thoroughly blackened, good helmets, and low caps of steel. There are many other weapons that can be used in naval fights, but it seems needless to discuss more than those which I have now enumerated.

Arms and armor for fighting on horseback

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The man who is to fight on horseback needs to make sure, as we have already stated, that he is thoroughly trained in all the arts of mounted warfare. For his horse he will need to provide this equipment he must keep him carefully and firmly shod; he must also make sure that the saddle is strong, made with high bows, and provided with strong girths and other saddlegear, including a durable surcingle across the middle and a breast strap in front. The horse should be protected in such a way both in front of the saddle arid behind it that he will not be exposed to weapons, spear thrust or stroke, or any other form of attack. He should also have a good shabrack made like a gambison of soft and thoroughly blackened linen cloth, for this is a good protection against all kinds of weapons. It may be decorated as one likes, and over the shabrack there should be a good harness of mail. With this equipment every part of the horse should be covered, head, loins, breast, belly, and the entire beast, so that no man, even if on foot, shall be able to reach him with deadly weapons. The horse should have a strong bridle, one that can be gripped firmly and used to rein him in or throw him when necessary. Over the bridle and about the entire head of the horse and around the neck back to the saddle, there should be a harness made like a gambison of firm linen cloth, so that no man shall be able to take away the bridle or the horse by stealth.:


The rider himself should be equipped in this wise: he should wear good soft breeches made of soft and thoroughly blackened linen cloth, which should reach up to the belt; outside these, good mail hose which should come up high enough to be girded on with a double strap; over these he must have good trousers made of linen cloth of the sort that I have already described; finally, over these he should have good knee-pieces madeof thick iron and rivets hard as steel. Above and next to the body he should Wear a soft gambison, which need not come lower than to the middle of, the thigh. Over this he must have a strong breastplate made of good iron covering the body from the nipples to the trousers belt (coat of plates); outside this, a well-made hauberk and over the hauberk a firm gambison made in the manner which I have already described but without sleeves. He must have a dirk and two swords, one girded on and another hanging from the pommel of the saddle. On his head he must have a dependable helmet made of good steel and provided with a visor. He must also have a strong, thick shield fastened to a durable shoulder belt and, in addition, a good sharp spear with a firm shaft and pointed with fine steel. Now it seems needless to speak further about the equipment of men who fight on horseback; there are, however, other weapons which a mounted warrior may use, if he wishes; among these are the "toved bow" and the weaker crossbow, which a man can easily draw even when on horseback, and certain other weapons, too, if he should want them.

---

Thoughts on Norwegian cavalry and how to make the elite among the Scandinavians look unique

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What did Norwegian cavalry look like in back in the day? I do not have evidence to prove Norway had a standing knightly cavalry force, safe for tournament of high-end nobility. However, if I were to assume Norway could conquer half of Europe like a Total War game I would assume something along the lines of:

Haakon IV Haakonsson (1217–1263) (1247-48)
http://www.hubert-herald.nl/Norge1_b...n/image016.jpg
His shield:
http://www.hubert-herald.nl/Norge1_b...n/image017.jpg
http://www.hubert-herald.nl/Norge1_b...n/image019.jpg

Magnus IV (1278)
http://www.hubert-herald.nl/Norge1_b...n/image027.jpg

King Eirik Magnusson (1285) of Sweden and Norway
http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/images/6/62/Norway3.jpg
http://www.hubert-herald.nl/Norge1_b...n/image039.jpg


A reenactor's view on King Haakon Magnusson IV (1355-80) horse and armor.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This armor is of a fairly heavy configuration with fully articulated arm harness, fully enclosed greaves, sabaton and inner cuisses (thigh) is protected. The only thing that's missing is the fauld (metal skirt that can collapse) that becomes more prevalent after the turn of the 14-15th century. This is a typical English style.

http://i.imgur.com/CkKUevX.jpg?1
http://i.imgur.com/a2jT1lJ.png?2

The English nobles were relativity close to Norwegian overseas colonies and also favored fighting on foot, ergo it makes sense to draw parallel lines among them. Germans were relativley close to the Danes, and employed a slightly different styles. Sweden's interests were towards the Baltic trade in the east, so perhaps that can influence some of their Swedish knights as well. This way, all nobles look slightly different from each other.

As a comparison between the typical English and German style, the English is generally fully enclosed as we're heading into the days of Agincourt. That's not to say Germans didn't have the same armor or that English knights never wore a slightly lighter configuration, but on average English wore a heavier configuration. A style that favored for knights fighting on foot, which Norwegians also prefer.

Details

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

continental arm harness sometimes wore a 3 quarter style where the upper arm is left with only mail and padding.
http://i.imgur.com/6xR1KDM.jpg?1
http://i.imgur.com/E0MN5BJ.jpg?1
http://i.imgur.com/M6SEG5q.jpg?1
http://i.imgur.com/mzfgfBb.png?1

Some Germans chose to wear no sabaton
http://i.imgur.com/x8mIS3O.png?1
http://i.imgur.com/GX9DKAG.png?1

English protected the back and inside of the thigh, while when you're on a horse that part is already protected.
http://effigiesandbrasses.com/media/...y_s24_r505.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/n2agn9x.jpg?1
http://i.imgur.com/gpY1Kn4.jpg?1

Curator of the Wallace Collection on the English armor compared to the continent.

The King's Mirror (1250-60)
Hirdlaw (1270)

---

Contemporary description of a Norwegian politics late 12th century, from an English monk's perspective:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This text is from William of Newburgh, a monk from England. He is describing the sanguanairy politics of Norway's civil war era.

A couple of quotes I found interesting.

For, as it is said, for more than a century back, although the succession of kings there had been rapid, yet none of them had ended his days by age or sickness, but all had perished by the sword, leaving the dignity of empire to their assassins as their lawful successors; so that, indeed, the expression, "Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?" may seem to apply to all who reigned there for so long a space of time.

As if George R.R. Martin was the author of the Norwegian Civil War era.

the sovereign pursued him with his army in array, he, artfully feigning flight, halted in some well-known narrow passes, and there so destroyed the royal forces.

On King Magnus chase after King Sverre

"Sverre, the great king, fierce as a lion, mild as a lamb;"
for he manifested clemency to his subjects, and paid respect to churches and monasteries.

Motto of king Sverre


Chapter 6: Of Sverre, king of Norway

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[1] In these times that very notorious priest, Sverre, surnamed Birckebain, seized the government in that part of Germany which is called Norway; and raging under the title of king for a considerable time, at length, on the decease of the sovereign of that country, obtained the government, as if legitimately; haply, perchance by the appointment of God, hereafter to experience an exit similar to other kings of that land. For, as it is said, for more than a century back, although the succession of kings there had been rapid, yet none of them had ended his days by age or sickness, but all had perished by the sword, leaving the dignity of empire to their assassins as their lawful successors; so that, indeed, the expression, "Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?" [cf. 1 Kings 21:19] may seem to apply to all who reigned there for so long a space of time. The nobility of that country, a little before the usurpation of this priest, being actuated by pious zeal to apply a remedy to this disgraceful evil -- which had obtained, as it were, by long custom, the sanction of law -- decreed that the new king should be solemnly consecrated with holy unction, and crowned, so that in future none might dare to lift his hand against the Lord's anointed. For until that time no one in that country had ever been consecrated king by an ecclesiastical ceremony; but whosoever had cruelly killed the king, from that moment assumed the regal character and power, shortly after about to leave the same fortune to his murderer by the law of art inveterate custom. This, truly, by a certain sort of Christian simplicity, was supposed by many persons to take place because none of the former kings had been careful to have himself initiated with the solemnities of royal unction.

[2] Wherefore, on the death of Haco, who had succeeded king Inga (whom he had murdered when the succession appeared to pertain to a certain youth called Magnus, nephew of the same Inga), the wiser and more noble part of the kingdom, by common assent, caused this same youth to be solemnly consecrated as the Lord's anointed, and to be dignified with the diadem. This being done, they thought that the prince was made sacred to them and the disgrace of the former usage was removed. But when the same Magnus, who now arrived at man's estate, had reigned for several years with equal energy and success, and all supposed that they had made sufficient provision against the storms of usurpation, the malice of the devil stirred up the priest aforesaid, as his proper engine, to disquiet the peace of this Christian people.

[3] After having for a time ministered in the sacred order which he had received in the church, this truly daring and crafty man, through extreme confidence in himself, began to aspire to the kingdom. Soon after, he surveyed the whole district, and diligently advanced the business of his meditated project by artfully assembling around him a band of bold and desperate men, hired by the hope of plunder; and availing himself of trackless deserts as fortresses, he annoyed the king by perpetual irruptions; and when the sovereign pursued him with his army in array, he, artfully feigning flight, halted in some well-known narrow passes, and there so destroyed the royal forces, thus unfortunately surrounded and entangled in the defiles, that the king himself, hiding among the slaughtered bodies, with difficulty made his escape on the departure of the enemy. Elated at this success, and daily gaining strength, he obtained a fleet also, which afforded him an opportunity of overrunning several provinces of the same kingdom. The king, however, recruiting, his forces and manning his fleet, proceeded against the enemy. Sverre was aware of this; and then, once more, he craftily feigned flight, and retreated far out to sea. When this was known to the king, he believed that the departure of this marauder was real, and returned with his fleet into a certain port. Here, when the army, through joy at a vanquished enemy, were giving loose to banqueting in fatal security, the execrable priest entering the harbor on the following night with his adherents, attacked the king's troops, who were overpowered with wine and sleep, and with little difficulty destroyed nearly the whole army, with the king's father and others of the nobility. The king, however, escaping while others fell, lay concealed (as it is said) for several days in a nunnery near at hand, and, vainly sought after by the enemy, eluded them by the will of God.

[4] The tyrant, elated by this disaster, and the havoc which he had inflicted upon his enemy, with equal cruelty and insolence proceeded on every side in triumph, exhibiting himself as a merciless master to the oppressed inhabitants -- but the king, after his concealment, being restored to safety and to his friends, began by degrees to recruit his strength, and to collect auxiliaries on all sides. He was now cautiously on his guard against the stratagems of his enemy, and at last, with a mighty array, proceeded against him. Presently on learning this, when he saw that the youth acted more warily and guardedly on account of his former mischances, and that he had the advantage in the number of ships and extent of forces, Sverre then had recourse to witchcraft. He had in his retinue a certain daughter of the devil, powerful in witchcraft, and deservedly to be compared to her of former times, of whom the noble poet observes, that

The witch pretends that by her potent verse
Some souls are freed, while others feel the curse,
Just as she pleases; that her art has force
To stop the stars or rivers in their course --
To conjure nightly phantoms; when she wills,
Earth roars beneath, and trees descend the hills. [Virgil, Aeneid, 4:487ff]

[5] At length this witch (as it is reported), with astonishing confidence in her destructive art, asked of her protecting usurper in what manner he would wish the enemies, which were before him, should perish. On his making choice that she should drown them, immediately, by the operation of the devil (who, indeed, by the power of his angelic nature has most influence over earthly elements when permitted by a superior power), the calm sea opened her mouth, and, in the sight of the enemy, swallowed up the greater portion of the royal fleet. On seeing this, the abandoned priest said, "Behold, my companions, how effectually the elements fight for us; be careful lest, perchance, those escape whose certain destruction the sea has left for your valor, that she may not seem to have done all." Wherefore the residue of the royal army, confounded at the sudden destruction of their associates, was easily overpowered, and the king himself killed.

[6] On his death the affrighted kingdom submitted to tyrannical usurpation. Sverre abjuring his sacred order and marrying the daughter of the king of the Goths, was anxious to be solemnly crowned by the archbishop of that country; but he, being a man of distinguished character, and neither to be prevailed upon by entreaties or threats to bedew that execrable head with holy unction, was by him expelled the country. After some years there arose from the race of former kings a very spirited youth, named John, whom vast numbers resorted to and supported. Though his first attempts were so prosperous that he had already become formidable to the tyrant, yet at length, through youthful ardor, rushing too into battle, he unfortunately and prematurely perished. After him sprang forth another youth from the royal stock, of great expectation, supported by many adherents; but even he, before many years had passed, was vanquished in battle by the tyrant on Holy Palm Sunday, and with his partisans totally destroyed. Thus, by the rod of God's fury, nearly the whole of the royal seed, as well as every native enemy, being all dispatched or banished, the great and terrific man at last, by the hand of a certain bishop, intimidated thereto by the threat of death, obtained the diadem of the kingdom with sacred unction, from the uncertain issue of a long-favored tyranny, secure, as it were, by repeated successes. The motto of his seal is said to have been as follows:
"Sverre, the great king, fierce as a lion, mild as a lamb;"

for he manifested clemency to his subjects, and paid respect to churches and monasteries.

My own notes and context:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In this text William is describing King Sverre of Norway ("the priest") ascension to power and the nature of the Civil War era in Norway, which lasted ~100 years(1130-1220/40). Sverre is understood today as the foundation of the current lineage, Sverre dynasty, but in the middle ages he was regarded as a descended from Harald Fairhair, the first king of Norway. Sverre is the grandfather of the king at 1212 AD.

1.

• Sverre came from the Norwegian vassal of Faroes, studying under Bishop to the son of a priest, with claims to the Norwegian throne.
• He was made leader of a warparty called Birchlegs, which was a derogatory term coined by their enemies to denote low status (lacking royal legitimacy).
• Here is describe the nature of the period, where all kings had died by the sword, rather than natural causes.

2.

• Here William is jut praising the legitimacy of the former dead monarch Magnus of Norway(d. 1184), whom he had succeeded from King Haakon the Broadshouldered (d. 1162) and his former king Inge the Hunchback (d.1161).

3.

• Here William describe how Sverre used guerillia tactics (smaller groups of units, kinda like how the mongols fought) against the former monarch's more conventional army at the time (array, massive shield wall).
• When Sverre gathered a fleet, he could attack the whole county with impunity. The Norwegian fleet, with their longships were designed for mobility and speed, more so than any other type of fleet.
• Our monk also describe here the Battle of Filmreite. In this battle, more or less, the old ruling elite were slaughtered and replaced by a new elite. It's kinda like how large parts of the French nobility perished at the aftermath of 1415 Agincourt.

4.

• William, as usual, look towards the supernatural to explain som events. In this case, it's not haunting ghosts, but a pagan witch. This witch, possessed by the devil, allowed Sverre to win the day. The ocean swallowed the former monarch's fleet. Welcome to the middle ages.

5.

• Sverre obtain Norway and had to fight other pretenders himself.

Here is a list of Norwegian Monarchs, for the sake of context.

William Newburgh, Book Three, ch 6.

~Wille

[Fedual]

Looks great but i cant help to wonder if anyone has some material on large numbers of swedish early knights using fully mailed caparisons? Dont get me wrong, i just became interested when i saw this image

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Cavalier]

Looks great but i cant help to wonder if anyone has some material on large numbers of swedish early knights using fully mailed caparisons? Dont get me wrong, i just became interested when i saw this image

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The knights certainly had full mails, but I doubt the horses were as armoured, fully covered in mail. The nobility wasn't as wealthy as their continental counterparts - Sweden really only became "rich" during the 17th century when it became a great power. But feel free to correct me if someone else has more information.

[Linke]

The knights certainly had full mails, but I doubt the horses were as armoured, fully covered in mail. The nobility wasn't as wealthy as their continental counterparts - Sweden really only became "rich" during the 17th century when it became a great power. But feel free to correct me if someone else has more information.

From the 1300s Swedish nobility used imported German armour or armour produced by germans in Sweden, wich would've been up to date.

[Fedual]

From the 1300s Swedish nobility used imported German armour or armour produced by germans in Sweden, wich would've been up to date.

But are you sure those early knights are from the 1300, i may be wrong but they look more 1100 to me

[Dumanthis]

I won't be able to do any info even close to Kjertesvein, but here is a couple of links to some books by David Lindholm and David Nicolle, it is really good reading and got some nice illustrations

The Scandinavian Baltic Crusades 1100-1500 http://brego-weard.com/lib2/Men_at_A..._1100-1500.pdf

Medieval Scandinavian Armies 1 1100-1300 http://users.atw.hu/medievalhouse/Os..._1100-1300.pdf

Medieval Scandinavian Armies 2 1300-1500 http://users.atw.hu/medievalhouse/Os..._1300-1500.pdf

How late are you going to go time wise, because there is some Houndskull and Klappvisor helmets in game wich would be ca. 1350 and if you going to very late like 14xx are you going to split the time periods as they did in Medieval 2 with early-high-late ?

as an extra question, since i am not sure, but wasn't Roskilde bigger than Lödöse at this time ?

extra little picture of

Danish and German Crusaders building fortifications at the existing Vod tribal settlement of Koporye 1241

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So there were SAMI warriors! Well, well, well who was right all along really good illustrations also, don't forget the finnish auxiliairies.

[c_kahnlund]

I'll also have to figure out if I can scale horses small to represent ponies and then figure out how to make the unit more practical as a dragoon style unit rather than horse archers.

What are you on about?

[Kjertesvein]

I was the one who persuaded Slytacular with sexual favors.

What are you on about?

We're talking about an animal that is the size of a pony (<14.2 hands) and handles the northern weather well.

Comparable Sumpter horse - Icelandic Horse

Comparable Destrier - Percheron

Granted Percheron were about a hand smaller back then, but it's still fairly impressive compared to the Nortern brethren. As a size comparison: Almost all miniatures of continental knights show that the riders foot is between this (1410, France) height of slightly below the horses belly, and this (Italy, 1380) just above the horse's belly. The Norse depictions of mounted riders in art show the riders foot is way lower like this, this or this. The long leg below the horse's belly indicate that the author is accustom to a certain height of the mount. Incidentally, it's also fairly close to the eastern horse archers like this (France, 801). You can say it's all art and that's fine, specially the last one. I'm no expert and I'm happy to have a discussion if you feel any different about native northern horses.

Lastly, this doesn't mean Scandinavian are unaware of continental horse breeds fit for the lance charge. Infact, I'm fairly confident that most royal Scandinavian had access to it such as this Norwegian depiction of a joust. Here the feet is fairly close to the horses stomach. The important bit is the scarcity compared to the continent.

~Wille

[Slytacular]

What are you on about?

Is there a problem with something to which is the reason why you are dropping hints? I'm already Kjertesvein's catch, so you might as well cut the chase and explain your point properly.

[c_kahnlund]

Is there a problem with something to which is the reason why you are dropping hints? I'm already Kjertesvein's catch, so you might as well cut the chase and explain your point properly.

You cant possibly believe they were riding ponies into battle. By 1212 ofc they had the access and knowhow to breed/use the same horses as the rest of Europe in battle. Not to the same extent perhaps but Sweden managed to defeat two by medieval standards large Danish forces, one at the battle of Lena in 1208 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lena and two years later they defeated an even bigger Danish force at the battle of Gestilren in 1210 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gestilren. Mainly thanks to organized archery and strong footmen just please dont make Sweden "too" weak

They units you made looks amazing so far though. Really looking forward to this.

[Kjertesvein]

@c_kahnlund

New Swedish soldier(right) fighting a Danish knight(left) [1][2][3], what do you think? Seriously though, apart from the mount, Sweden is going to field heavy units of good quality.

You cant possibly believe they were riding ponies into battle.

The Scandinavian mount was kinda like a Skyrim horse (pre patch 1.6). Very good at getting you across rugged terrain, but not ideal for combat.

Strategically, the Scandinavian mount was vital part of mobilizing armies across unforgiving topography, specially by sled or cart. Horses were also a strong tactical component where the rider would use the mount to quickly mobilize, then dismount and fight on foot in order to use the terrain to their advantage. Jump on their horses if they had to escape, chase routing enemies, courier activity and scouting were all vital aspects of warfare. When King Haakon IV lead a landbased campaign into Värmland (1225) he brought more horses than men, 5000+.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

de møttes paa nogen enger vestenfor Aker (343). Der blev det den første strid mellem gauterne og nordmændene. Bønderne stanset op, da de møttes, og vilde næsten ikke frem. Da birkebeinerne saa det, steg de av hestene og gik djervelig frem. Ribbungene søkte haardt ind paa dem; ti de hadde mange djerve mænd, og gik saa haardt frem i førstningen, at de fældte Eirik Ignarbakke, bøndernes merkesmand. Men da bønderne saa birkebeinerne stride saa vel og mandig, steg de ogsaa av hestene og fulgte dem som bedst. Det varte ikke længe, før ribbungene tok flugten og en stor del av deres bedste folk faldt; der faldt ogsaa de allerfleste av gauternes sveitehøvdinger. Men Knut kom sig op paa en hest og flygtet med tre andre ribbunger. Da han sprængte over en bro, faldt hesten hans; han kom sig med nøden unda og fór op i landet; ti ribbungene hadde da den største del av Oplandene og skibe i alle vandene, baade i Mjøsen og de andre. Ribbunger satte mænd i alle sysler der; ti det var da ingen birkebeiner paa Oplandene.

They dismount to fight on foot. They mounted horses against when they intend to flee. Haakon haakonsaga ch 146

Let's look at the difference between the continental horse and the northern horse. Research undertaken by Museum of London, using literary, pictorial and archeological sources, supports military horses of 142-152 cm[clark, p25], while the destrier were not much bigger at 152 to 157 cm. The medieval Scandinavian horse was between 120 and 126cm [Kulturhistoriskt lexikon för nordisk medeltid]. This is fairly similar to modern Gotlandruss (russ, old swedish term for horse, as in horse service, rusttjänst) https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotlandsruss When the Norwegians attack Scotland (1263), the term used was 'knights on Spanish horses' (haakon sage ch 326), the contemporary war horse. However, the Norse author didn't mention the ponies ("hack") that the footsoldiers used (according to Jean le Bel). One can assume the ponies were not mentioned for some unknown reason, or for the fact that their presence wasn't extraordinarily enough to justify a comment.

Additionally, heavy German mercenary knights (Saxo, Battle of Fotevik; Erik saga) were very expensive and their battle usage described as impactful. To my understanding, and perhaps I'm wrong, but it make little sense to hire expensive companies of German mercenary knights and hold it in high regard, if they had their own companies that could adequately fill that same role. Lastly, while the fields on the continent could yield several cycles of crops each year, the Nordic climate could not support the needed surplus to breed, maintain and train large number of war horses.

By 1212 ofc they had the access and knowhow to breed/use the same horses as the rest of Europe in battle.

It seems evident to me that it was less a matter of knowledge, but instead a matter related to economy and topography. As of now I have not seen any evidence for it. I've heard claims that it's an early modern creation in the days of Carl X Gustav's (1622-1680) Royal Stud at Flyinge (1658) by importing continental warmblooded Frisian breeds. Possibly starting some time before that, but I don't know. If you have evidence for it I'm happy to reconsider my position on it.

I read a ma thesis about 3 years ago on Norwegian medieval cavalry, and most likely, we're talking about the few richest nobility importing continental breeds for the use in tournaments, but no descriptive evidence to support continental horse breeds for the use of mass couched charge.

Not to the same extent perhaps but Sweden managed to defeat two by medieval standards large Danish forces, one at the battle of Lena in 1208 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lena and two years later they defeated an even bigger Danish force at the battle of Gestilren in 1210 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gestilren. Mainly thanks to organized archery and strong footmen

Be careful about taking these numbers too seriously, as they're most likely exaggerated like most literature of that day. Specially when the sources are sparse at best and where location isn't known. If you have sources, dissertation thesis or archaeological remains to back up your suggestions, then I'm more than happy to listen.

I'm confident Sweden is going to be a cool faction.

~Wille

[c_kahnlund]

@c_kahnlund

Be careful about taking these numbers too seriously, as they're most likely exaggerated like most literature of that day.

~Wille

Indeed, that applies to your "pony" sources aswell. Ofc there was cav, not to a degree as the other kingdoms on the continent. You wouldnt defeat an enemy with proper cavalry if you had none yourself. You cant say with a 100% certainty they were non-existant. I would have heard of these ponies if they were used to the same extent i Sweden as in Norway but your topografy is quite different from ours so atleast it makes sence for norwegian to use them I guess.

[Kjertesvein]

You wouldnt defeat an enemy with proper cavalry if you had none yourself.

To a degree, true. In the beginning, the Scandinavians levy was actually not that bad against cavalry. The Norwegian Leidang that would fight abroad (probably yeaoman class) showed it was able to withstand cavalry by forming a complex formations comparable to "Shiltron", but also other formations such as sheild wall, wedge, shield castle, etc. However, as we move into the 14th and later 15th century prove to be outdated.

On the other hand, the transitional period show that cavalry doesn't automatically grant you victory because other methods were employed. Most medieval armies were relatively small and hard to replenish. Commanders would normally avoid battle simply because the risk was high and the reward low. In the words of John Gillingham, War and Government in the Middle Ages, Cambridge.

Most campaigns did not end in battle because both commanders were reluctant to risk battle. This was in accord with the advice given in what is perhaps the best book ever written on medieval warfare - and one read by many medieval commanders: the De Re Militari by Vegetius. Vegetius’ advice on giving battle was quite simple: Don't. Well, you might occasionally, if you heavily outnumbered your enemy, if their morale was poor, their supplies short, if they were tired and poorly led, then in these circumstances you might, but otherwise no.

In the 35 year conflict period starting 1285 between the princes and nobility of Scandinavia, based on the chronicles, letters and German account letters, we can point to almost 6000 German (and some English) mercenaries serving in the wars for all sides. Hired in bulks of a couple of 100s to several 1000s. According to Fagerland's doctorate, the participants in the conflicts required the combined arms of the 1. The (fleet)levy; 2. fortifications; and 3. German mercenary knights to win the conflict. Most warfare consisted of one dominant part raiding the country side of the other, while the weaker party usually avoided battle by sitting in their castles. All the 3 monarchs and their proxy lords did this to each other in every imaginable alliance possible. When the Swedish duke marched his army into Oslo, the Norwegian farmers tried to relive Akershus fortress and opposed the German knights of the Swedes. The Norwegian farmers suffered 1/3 of their forces, while the Swedes returned home soon after. If you had the upper hand, pressure your opponent with armed forces and secure a diplomatic deal on your terms... if you're strong enough. That's medieval warfare in a nutshell.

In the 1309 campaign lead by the Danish king Menved and his vassal Henry II, Lord of Mecklenburg, which was noted as a big army of it's time, would plunder the hinterland for supplies and lay siege to the Swedish castles. The defending Swedish Dukes would avoid conventional field battle. They applied a scorched earth tactics and would ambush foraging parties sent by the the Danes and their German allies, always staying within reach. In addition, as Vegetius suggest to not fight on equal terms, but instead open diplomatic relations that would go no-where. All the while, the Swedes patiently waited to assemble the greater militia from Kalmar, Stockholm and 2 cogs of of their own German mercenaries. While this was going on, the danish provisions would run low as the winter approached. The Danish nobles eventually lead a mutiny, but the fortunately for the invaders the 2500 German mercenaries remained loyal to the Danish king. At this point both parties entered diplomacy and the Swedish dukes would agree to a treaty on Danish terms. This is comparable to most European warfare at the time. Levies, knights and castles. This is reflected in The King's Mirror (1270) where the chapter about siege warfare is substantially bigger than any other chapter on warfare such as ship and land combat, going to great details on what to do.

The point here is that knights were used mostly as political leverage, rather than in an abundance of field battles. The other side would sit in their castles and use guerrilla tactics against the conventional army. Sometimes the army with knights came out ahead, sometimes not. It wasn't a clear cut for the conventional army until High - Late period. During the whole medieval period, the German knights filled the demand for heavy cavalry in Scandinavia.

You cant say with a 100% certainty they were non-existant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to deny something on the basis of unquestionable certainty. Far from it, I'm saying there is no descriptive primary sources to my knowledge of a company of couched lances on par with European standards. Whether or not this was the case back then, we'll never really know. I would love be proven wrong, but alas no such fate has befallen me.

your topografy is quite different from ours

The Norwegian lowland topography is comparable to the Sweden's lowland. The saga sources of the Värmland campaign which depict the land-based Norwegian leidang are from Osloregionen and Bohuslen.

Another example where we can compare Europeans warfare to that of the Scandinavian cavalry. In the words of the English historian J.E. Morris, the Scottish forces from the events of Bannockburn (1314-1337) mobilized by horse and systematically avoided close quarter engagements, but instead dismounted as useful marksmen. This is comparable to a point in the Värmland campaign where King Haakon sent forth a company of 120 mounted archers ahead of the convoy to clear a road block/ambush. (ch 115) Dragoons if you would excuse my bastardization of the word.

​~Wille

[Captain Zoran]

Great work on Sweden mate! I understand that researching this period of Sweden's history can be quite a fuss, as there are not many truly reliable sources from this period. However I believe Kjertesvein and the others are doing a magnificient job with their research. I wish to contribute though and thought I could dig up some noble coat of arms for use on shields and such. There are very few noble families apart from the Bjälbo/Eirik/Sverker families known from the early era, but in order to give more variety to shields and such, I think it fitting that these emblems could be used on atleast Knight-grade units (as most of those that became "nobles" by the Ordninance of Alsnö in 1280 were simply families who owned a set of lands and could perform feudal military service in the form that we commonly call knights)

Some noble coat of arms from the 13th to 16th Century:

Natt och Dag (Literaly Night and Day, what an innovative name... 13th Century) who are the oldest, still alive, noble family:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tt_och_Dag.svg

Bonde (13th Century):
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonde_...cheon_1996.jpg

Carpelan (Finnish nobles, high/late era however might be used on finnish auxiliary units):
https://www.riddarhuset.se/wp/wp-con...38-243x292.jpg

Leijonhufvud (14th Century):
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leijon...ijonhufvud.svg

Stenbock (14th Century):
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenbo..._Olofsson).svg

Jägerhorn af Spurila (Also Finnish, 15th Century):
https://www.riddarhuset.se/wp/wp-con...14-243x292.jpg

Trolle (14th Century):
https://www.riddarhuset.se/wp/wp-con...36-243x292.jpg

Ribbing (15th Century):
https://www.riddarhuset.se/wp/wp-con...15-243x292.jpg

There are lots more, however some are simply off-branches from some other families that you could use. Tell me if you want more or tell me to off, in either way great work Slytacular!