Medieval Kingdoms Total War: The Holy Roman Empire (REVAMP)

[Knight2708]

It's a field I'd like to see in depth research into to behonest, but I've stumbled on several sources which can't be overlooked. It started with a source I stumbled over by accident.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1390 from Bremen, north of Germany, summing up what armour and weapons the inhabitants of the rural area around the city were obliged to own at all times.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"En jewelik lantman in de zulven Vylande schal hebben to ewigen tyden ene troyen, eyen yseren hud, en par wapenhanschen, enen schilt, ene worpbarden unde enen peck van zesteyn voten unde kortere nicht, by broke ener mark, ..."


"Every landman in this same Vyland (the municipal rural area around Bremen) shall have at all times a troyen (protective padded coat), an iron hat, a pair of gauntlets, a shield, a throwing axe and a pike of sixteen feet and not shorter, on pain of paying one mark, .... "

Our second source is thanks to fellow TWCenter member Jagdpanzer, who found the second source.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"the arms of the citizens of Groningen in 1425


De wapenen waren zwaarden, lange messen, rustings, jentzen, baselers, beslagene kolven, harnassen, bogen, armborden en werpbaarden (bijlen)".

The weapons themselves would probably have been prevalent and known in their respective societies, because we see these weapons mentioned in several city laws. Our search for weapons requirements basically comes down to the city of Groningen and Vyland, the hinterland around Bremen. Also the cities of Groningen, Ommen and Kampen had laws which goes into depth when these weapons are misused. The fact that they were part of law codes indicates that the weapons were of common usage in those areas mentioned and that they are valid weapons for war.
These cities were closely connected to the Hanseatic League, so that element is possible to exploit in terms of our naming convention and coats of arms.



I shared my knowledge with Roland Warzecha, who is familiar with the local museums of arms and armour in Hamburg, but he didn't have a lot to add on the matter. This is only our search, and you can find the main discussion here with respective sources and images of contemporary throwing axe designs. I also asked two language forums which independently confirmed the word does indeed mean throwing axes. At this point, I'll consider it a fairly solid foundation to start from. Important to note, I'm not going to say that throwing axes were used elsewhere, nor that throwing axes were not used elsewhere. The geographical extent is something I've not looked into. This means I don't have an answer for you if you're questioning to which geographical extent these were used. Hopefully future research can give us a satisfying answer in this regard.

Two related fun facts:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What is interesting to note, are some mentions of other similar weapons.

Firstly, the law from Kampen stated that to carry concealed throwing axes and fist-hammers were were not allowed. The fist-hammer mentioned in combination with the throwing axe as concealed is interesting. It means they were personal weapons that could be carried on your side. What the fist-hammer looks like is not known to me. It could be similar to the one mentioned in a video by Matt Easton. It's quite the unique weapon.




Lastly, thanks to a fellow TWCenter member +Marius+ contribution, apparently a peculiarly shaped war hammer used for throwing. More firewood for the discussion is always welcome.

"From the 14th to early 16th centuries, a special type of the war hammer was used in central Europe as a missile weapon, which was given a spinning motion in flight. Functionally similar to the throwing axes, these war hammers had a conical pointed head with a spike and a fluke, and the steel handle was also sharply pointed at the bottom. In its simplest form, the throwing hammer had the form of a Latin cross whose four pointed arms were designed to inflict a wound however the weapon hit."

The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms and Weapons Edited by Leonid Tarassuk & Claude Blair.

~Wille

Just to be clear I am not doubting that these weapons were used and adding them to a specific militia unit or something like that would be really cool, but I dont see any basis for having all German infantry use them as is the case currently. Also that's some pretty cool research.

[Heisenburrg]

@The_Fawn_Rescuer
In terms of furs, horns and longswords I keep agreeing with you. But remember the traditional knightly weapons like sword and shild, please don´t skimp them completely for knights. This wouldn´t do them justice, too. Removing the furs from southern german states sounds like a good compromise for the Austria/Bavaria-Fans. Beards and long mustaches really are sometimes rather "germanic" then "german", this could be changed. ^^

And you translated "ministeriales" with "Dienstleute"? Ok, thats indeed a reason for keeping this name. "Dienstleute" could also be used as another alternative option for the sugestion of renaming "Aussöldner" to "Lehensmaenner" (or Knights2708´s proposals). Do what you like best here.
Would be awesome if the few other renamings, slightly armor changes, less falchions, one or two additional one-handed-sword-Knights and balancing Longsword-Knights (all see above) were taken into account too.

Looking forward to your further changes.

@Knight2708
Agree with most of your points. When it comes to heraldry I think, Fawn and the other Members working on the previous versions of HRE already did an outstanding job, it already looks very diversified. Indeed, to add more coat of arms is always possible and I´m sure some more will be added in the future, but to represent so much of them is not needed imo. In the moment I´m almost completely satisfied. Otherwise good suggestions, can go along with this.

[Minnesinger]

Thank you for your interesting answer Kjertesvein, indeed the use of furs during middle ages deserves serious studies, since it was a very common dress in all Europe. But I personnally doubt that, due to their expensive cost and the practice of seasonal war as mentionned before, noblemen were used to wear them on battlefields; anyway that was not the point of your intervention.
Well, like some other commentators I agree with a two-handed sword unit for tier 1, just not at the price of a ritter unit with swords and shields. I badly expressed myself concerning my "teutonic-like" assertion, I know the german ritter bruder constituting the core of the Teutonic Order didn't change their customs when settling in the borders of the Baltic sea. Concerning the crest discussion the whole point, after all, is to know if german knights just wore horns or also more elaborate figures on battlefields. I know this is not the same time nor the same place but seeing the depiction of the battle of San Romano by Paolo Uccello (the painting is from 1435-1460) I'm wondering if this wasn't a somewhat frequent habit for the knights to wear such equipment on battles (I'll be very glad if someone take the time to explain to me how to insert hide/show panels on messages).

[Kjertesvein]

Concerning the crest discussion the whole point, after all, is to know if german knights just wore horns or also more elaborate figures on battlefields. I know this is not the same time nor the same place but seeing the depiction of the battle of San Romano by Paolo Uccello (the painting is from 1435-1460) I'm wondering if this wasn't a somewhat frequent habit for the knights to wear such equipment on battles.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It's my general understanding that crests were prominent in the 13 to 14th century. While that never ended, the use of feathers became the dominant helmet decoration in the 15th century onward, which you've showed with your pictures. If you're interested in researching this on your own, it's fairly easy to do. Knightly effigies. Effigies are not always going to match what they would be use in battle. If I remember correct, I think it was Dr. Tobias Capwell who argued that the "Bishops ring" we sometimes see on the head of English knightly effigies would not be used in wartime). Other than that, an effigy is a very good source when it comes to finding out what the best armour looked like. Search, and it should yield a bit less than 300 results of the relevant effigies (Germany & Austria). I can tell you right now that horns are plenty, but several other "types" are present as well. http://effigiesandbrasses.com/

If you're looking for a general run-down of knightly armour decorations for our period, I would read this short text. It covers most of what we're dealing with.

~Wille

[Visarion]

Update!?

[Imperator Karl franz IV SIGMA]

the use of fur is not often only if the army was really well equipped and mostly it was in the winter
I also don't like the Nordic touch its to cliche also the game is only 50 years in that time period it is mostly 13 century to 15 century not 16 century

[Visarion]

Fawn can you please make a preview of HRE and dependencies so that all the people could give an honest opinion!?

[Imperator Karl franz IV SIGMA]

also pls rename them Aussöldner not aussoldner

[Archilles]

I think you cant put äöü in the names!

[Imperator Karl franz IV SIGMA]

really ahhha

[Monster33333]

The Dismounted Rittur u have in campaign in the Feb update are using swords that are normally used as 1 handed by mostly all the other units. Is this permanent or will u change that up a bit?

[Heisenburrg]

@Pinarius
I understand your point of view and agree to some extend (Beards and so on). But don´t forget that this man invested much freetime and gave us an, in my opinion, very beautiful interpretation of the medieval HRE with lots of improvements (coat of armes, additional units etc.). Besides the fact that some artistic freedom (for these damn furs for example) is always possible, if it´s not completely incorrect, I think that some compromises could be addressed.

[finix]

@Pinarius
I understand your point of view and agree to some extend (Beards and so on). But don´t forget that this man invested much freetime and gave us an, in my opinion, very beautiful interpretation of the medieval HRE with lots of improvements (coat of armes, additional units etc.). Besides the fact that some artistic freedom (for these damn furs for example) is always possible, if it´s not completely incorrect, I think that some compromises could be addressed.

"very beautiful" everytime I see his work I want to destroy my computer. Ltd. HRE units were much better before. And these horns...now look like a comedians from circus of Buffalo Bill

[Pinarius]

I just noticed that he also gave the French units these massive beards.

[Heisenburrg]

@Pinarius
I´m sure there were some people who liked that Full-beard-style, even in the medieval.

@finix
These are hard words. I think Fawn made great efforts for this mod and he´s still doing so. Some of his units might be a bit freestyle, but they are definitely made on a historical base. Rosters like KJC and France are some of the best this mod has to offer and many people like them. Such a fierce criticism he did not reserve in my opinion. Please, respect each other and stay together as team.

[zsimmortal]

@finix
These are hard words. I think Fawn made great efforts for this mod and he´s still doing so. Some of his units might be a bit freestyle, but they are definitely made on a historical base. Rosters like KJC and France are some of the best this mod has to offer and many people like them. Such a fierce criticism he did not reserve in my opinion. Please, respect each other and stay together as team.

Well the main problem is we all have different design philosophies, so it's obviously going to cause some internal conflicts. I think it's fine to have some freedom, but overall, the historical sources are there as the foundation and that's how it should be IMO. Fringe military fashion has its place as fringe military fashion, not as the standard.

While I toe the historical hardline, I don't have problems with some slight creative license. The best example is capes. They're cool and people expect them, but the reality is that wearing a cape to the battlefield is just moronic, since it gives absolutely no benefits, it puts a target on your back (as someone who can be killed to cull the military command or who can be ransomed) and it can get stuck or pulled by someone to cause some very serious problems. While I won't give grief to anyone putting capes on their units, I would never do so.

[finix]

I do not care I would be offended someone. I do not like his work and not hide it from day one. I just think that this style is not for this mod. I will not stop to criticize, but when he do something that deserves admirations I would say to him BRAVO
And I'm so sharp, because I see a wonderful mod can be ruined. I'm sorry but I'm furious right now. I am grateful to Warman and Ltd. that they gave me a chance to be part on this team, but I see the end of my participation if continued to be made after the revamp and revamp of units already perfect by people without any taste

[Filips Augustus]

There is a difference between critizing and what you're doing atm finix. You're straight out calling Fawn someone without any taste, while this may be your opinion, it does not reflect the opinions of everyone here; I for one like this new HRE, and I am not the only one. If you leave out the HRE, and check Fawn's Toulouse, Jerusalem, Antioch or Castille, can you still call him tasteless? Are you saying that you don't like even ONE unit he made? Instead of offending people (and not caring about it either like you said), you should come up with actual reasons why you think certain elements shouldn't be in the units he made, while Fawn, on the contrary, regularly shows historical images to support the design on his units. Some other members here also came up with actual sources to prove that some elements in Fawns designs are not historically accurate, and I think it would be better if you did that as well instead of straight out offending your teammate, and, again, not caring about it.

[finix]

There is a difference between critizing and what you're doing atm finix. You're straight out calling Fawn someone without any taste, while this may be your opinion, it does not reflect the opinions of everyone here; I for one like this new HRE, and I am not the only one. If you leave out the HRE, and check Fawn's Toulouse, Jerusalem, Antioch or Castille, can you still call him tasteless? Are you saying that you don't like even ONE unit he made? Instead of offending people (and not caring about it either like you said), you should come up with actual reasons why you think certain elements shouldn't be in the units he made, while Fawn, on the contrary, regularly shows historical images to support the design on his units. Some other members here also came up with actual sources to prove that some elements in Fawns designs are not historically accurate, and I think it would be better if you did that as well instead of straight out offending your teammate, and, again, not caring about it.

Filip I don't have any problems with any other member I even think that everyone is doing great. Yes I'm rude and insulting and I'm sorry about that. But I'm not myself then looked units since last update.
I want to put yourself in my place. Make cards of 2 years to now. I think I've done a good job. And then decided that we should make units that do not resemble at all previous. This is a mount of my life thrown in the trash. Ok I respect the individual style, but we do historical mod but only in the work of Fawn I find quite big discrepancies in historical reality. And nobody pays attention to my protest. If new the German units seem appropriate for the region OK but not for me.
And yes I have my comments on Toulouse and Castile

[The_Fawn_Rescuer]

Are we fighting? Somebody said there was a fight going on. I wasn't aware of it. I'm not offended. It really doesn't matter to me if some people don't like my work. I enjoy criticism (especially made in a polite way and citing sources), and as you can see from my other rosters, I often implement changes to units based on feedback from the community. It does concern me a little that some people are quick to point to aspects (and not politely) as 'flaws' and 'historically inaccurate' without backing up those claims with any evidence. I tend to just ignore those comments, but there is a LOT of heated debate going on here because of them.

Filip I don't have any problems with any other member I even think that everyone is doing great. Yes I'm rude and insulting and I'm sorry about that. But I'm not myself then looked units since last update.
I want to put yourself in my place. Make cards of 2 years to now. I think I've done a good job. And then decided that we should make units that do not resemble at all previous. This is a mount of my life thrown in the trash. Ok I respect the individual style, but we do historical mod but only in the work of Fawn I find quite big discrepancies in historical reality. And nobody pays attention to my protest. If new the German units seem appropriate for the region OK but not for me.
And yes I have my comments on Toulouse and Castile

Yeah, I feel you about the card thing. It can be kinda unavoidable when adding new assets to a re-vamp. If it makes you feel any better, I do try and keep the new design close to the card if I can.

I'd have to step in a bit, as I feel that there are some rather harsh words being thrown into this whole debate.
Horns and moustaches aside, I feel the need to put in a word for Fawn, as he has done a great job with his rosters.
Yes there are some things I would have done slightly different but that is the case with any other roster that I haven't made. And on the other hand, obviously, I am sure that the other team members would have done things differently in the rosters I have created. But that is in the nature of things. Each and every one of us has their own design and is of course not immune to at least slightly subjectively seeing history.

My design is rather more plain and simplistic at times, while other rosters may favour a more flashy and more luxurious approach and that is perfectly fine if it is within our historical confines.

Those long moustaches might just as well get replaced with beards or shorter moustaches, I guess.

On the issue with the horns: as long as not entire units have horned helmets but officers and some of the elite cavalry only, that is absolutely reasonable, even more so since there are depictions on german effigies.

Also, team members who do not have the option to make models on their own, have to make do with what they have at their disposal, and mix and match them to achieve something unique and that can be just as hard as creating new assets.

That is why rosters are being revised so often, as new assets make their way into the mod.

Let's keep our work relations as friendly as possible. All of us are still learning both modding and learning something new from our past every day and as such there is room for improvement for everyone involved.

There is no need to have strained relations within our group.

Thanks a lot for those compliments. Not to toot my own horn, but since you mentioned it, I'm kinda proud with how well I re-use certain assets in new ways

It's like you said, that we just have different visions, and there's nothing wrong with that. I like having a lot of different interpretations, and there is validity to all of the ones I have seen in this mod, which is why I seldom make criticisms of other people's work on the forums unless it is something glaring. I believe in letting people be creative, and really there is no other way, because historians are constantly discovering new things and understanding events in different ways every day. History is like science in that way, there are lots of theories, but very few laws - which is to say that there are few things that are not up for debate. This is why I don't mind people disagreeing with me. It happens. At the end of the day, I was given the task to make this or that particular faction because warman or one of the other senior developers had trust in me that I would do my best and do a good job, so I will make things based on my interpretation (with changes and suggestions from other people - see my other faction posts for evidence of this, i implement lots of feedback from the community).

I just noticed that he also gave the French units these massive beards.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you're referencing the Trabanten, those are Bohemian archers, and they are identical to LTD's Bohemian archers except that I changed the shading a little. Maybe I added another, longer moustache, and a helmet or something, I don't remember exactly. If it's a huge problem, then I'll change it. I'd appreciate it a lot if you pointed it out more politely. In America we have a saying: "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar." "Fange die Fliegen mit dem Honig mehr als das Essig" (?)(excuse my conjugation, I know it stinks!)

But I have no idea what the problem is with the French. I definitely did not use long moustaches, and if I did, then I'm horrified by this gaffe. Otherwise, there are lots of soldiers from the middle ages depicted with big 'ol honkin' beards:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And, I know it's the wrong period, but my specialty is the early crusades, and a particular passage I remember from when Anna Komnene describes the Norman crusader Bohemond, she recalls it strange that he didn't have a big beard, like the rest of the 'Gauls' (as she often calls them), and that he cut his hair short, which also made him stand out from the rest of the Franks.




I've been pretty busy lately, and I haven't done a whole lot of unit making. I'm currently working on adding Tier 3 units to Antioch, when I get the time.