Nationalism in this Mod

[jim501]

the biggest win/fail for Nationalism from country A vs Nationalism from country B was a guy from Turkey who said the name of Bulgaria comes from Bulgur (type of meal)

The name of Bulgaria is indeed derived from the Bulgars,a Turkic tribe and most etymological theories trace the origin to a turkic language, but it is the first I hear someone proposing it comes from a meal

[Heisenburrg]

@Lucem Mundum;
It was only an example. If it wasn´t meant in this way, you have my apologies. And you are right, I am following this mod since it´s earliest days and I know such comments, which are in my opinion also not reasonable and shouldn´t belong to this forum. Nobody is "better" because of their origin, what counts (if something counts) are individual decisions and values.

@deadangelx99
That´s interpretation, the vehement sound of writing as well as the lexis gave me that feeling. But that´s not twisting or something that is not there, it is not more than reading between the lines. I know, that this can be misleadingly, but its very common, just to say "technically it´s not there" or "I didn´t wrote that" (this examples don´t refer to your writings, it´s generally speaking) to secure themselves and remain intact. Again; if I´m wrong, I take it all back.
And it´s not by me to close a thread. It was only a personal suggestion, because it´s an explosive theme; it will likely lead to ugly scenes and won´t really give people a better understanding for historical aspects, as well as it won´t help to push the project´s progress.
And yeah, your last point is very right. I know, thats still WIP and many things will get reworked, just said my opinion to the current state. So only thing left now is to wait for the release.

[FrozenmenSS]

The name of Bulgaria is indeed derived from the Bulgars,a Turkic tribe and most etymological theories trace the origin to a turkic language, but it is the first I hear someone proposing it comes from a meal

not this outdated theory again........
easy answer : look at the genetic studies and contact me in private to talk.

Sent from my GT-I9301I using Tapatalk

[FuzFuzFuz]

@Heisenburg Please don't presume or read-in-between the lines of anybody's post without even knowing their character. I have the best intention of the mod at heart, it would't be fair to me or anyone if their opinions,concerns or posts are swept aside because someone else finds it agressive or offensive even when there is nothing like that inside the post or it is being interpreted completely the opposite of the poster's intentions. Treat it as a positive unless there are clear negatives in it (eg. nationalists are bad, they should be banned etc), then you can call out on the poster to stop being aggressive and offensive.

There is no premise to close this thread; no one has broken any rules. One can argue that a local moderator who closes this thread can be reported for wrongful closure. If there is someone who will post an unruly post, I'll advocate closing this thread myself, but since everyone here has adhered to the rules to a large extent, closing this thread would be unfair and unjust.

[riskymonk]

Is this mod going to hold back on some of the more sensitive areas in history? I'm not here to critisice if the modders would rather hold back in order not to cause anger or offend somebody. Maybe even receive death threats.

The only example I can think of is how they portray Saladin. However, I don't know too much about this mods time period and what areas could cause offence. The portrayal of Saladin was just an example.

[jim501]

Is this mod going to hold back on some of the more sensitive areas in history? I'm not here to critisice if the modders would rather hold back in order not to cause anger or offend somebody. Maybe even receive death threats.

The only example I can think of is how they portray Saladin. However, I don't know too much about this mods time period and what areas could cause offence. The portrayal of Saladin was just an example.

What do you mean ?
What could the modders do that offends someone ?

I mean every character like Saladin in this case is merely a blank slate, so they cant portray him in an "offensive way" like a movie would for example .

[Heisenburrg]

@deadangelx99
Ok, sounds fair enough. One point I´d like to add; I know that it´s a tricky thing to interpret something but I said multiple times "if I´m wrong, i´ll take it back". It´s someone´s good right to form and express an opinion about an impression, which he got from a certain theme, if he expresses it in a constructive way and, like you said, doesn´t sweep anything aside. Everyone interprets or reflects in every situation, it´s not avoidable. You interpret my statements too. To express this, is only a step further and could likely lead to clarification (e.g. This situation ). From this process opinions (which are not necessarily based on facts but also impression) emerge. But you should be able to agree, that in some cases not so noble intentions are concealed behind some noble words. Politics for example taught us this many times. Reading between the lines and also relying on impressions are one of the few, most important and only instruments to comprehend other peoples motives, also in "positive" situations.
Ok, but this goes a bit off topic, even if its a nice and intersting theme to discuss. Anyhow; I noticed, that you want to be fair and I can agree to your point.

And yeah, I´ve seen threads closed just for being off-topic, being not helpful or spamming the forum. In my opinion these are comprehensable reasons in regard of the forum´s organization, clearly breaking rules would only be the ultimate cause. There our views just differ. But thats not important, it would be the moderators decision anyway.

[riskymonk]

What do you mean ?
What could the modders do that offends someone ?

I mean every character like Saladin in this case is merely a blank slate, so they cant portray him in an "offensive way" like a movie would for example .

In Kingdom of Heaven he was portrayed as a gentle, kind, and generous leader. This has become a popular myth but I'm not sure if that's the movies fault, Hollywood in general or something else.

Another good example could be Vlad the Impaler. The Romanians see him as a national hero who did no wrong. Will modders be careful not to cause offence and continue with these popular myths or will they be as accurate as possible? I wouldn't have a problem if they pleased those who believe that their hero was nothing but a good person. It's understandable as they would likely receive violent threats and lots of critiscm and abuse if they portrayed such generals/leaders accurately.

It it also interests me to see how modders would deal with Muslim Iberia. Another popular belief is that the Muslims were peaceful and respectful during their occupation of Iberia but of course this is told to us because it's dangerous to offend Muslims.

[Filips Augustus]

They can't offend these characters in the game. Their only role in this game is to fight, so how exactly would they be portrayed as kind/terrible in the game?

[zsimmortal]

In Kingdom of Heaven he was portrayed as a gentle, kind, and generous leader. This has become a popular myth but I'm not sure if that's the movies fault, Hollywood in general or something else.

He is mostly known as benevolent because he spared the Christians of Jerusalem. The Crusaders had slaughtered the population (Muslim, Jewish and others) when they took it. It doesn't make Saladin necessarily generous or kind, but rather someone that is not a bloodthirsty zealot. He is far from the only person like that of his era.

Another good example could be Vlad the Impaler. The Romanians see him as a national hero who did no wrong. Will modders be careful not to cause offence and continue with these popular myths or will they be as accurate as possible? I wouldn't have a problem if they pleased those who believe that their hero was nothing but a good person. It's understandable as they would likely receive violent threats and lots of critiscm and abuse if they portrayed such generals/leaders accurately.

Just because someone put soldiers on stakes doesn't necessarily make them a bad person, as weird as that sounds. I'm not sure why you seem to believe every character has to be black or white.

It it also interests me to see how modders would deal with Muslim Iberia. Another popular belief is that the Muslims were peaceful and respectful during their occupation of Iberia but of course this is told to us because it's dangerous to offend Muslims.

Some, if not most, respected (at least the elites usually did) other peoples' right to exist and have their own cultural heritage, whereas the Christian Iberians expelled the Muslims and Jews. This is why one is said to be tolerant while the other zealous and intolerant. It doesn't offend anyone to mention the Almohad repression.

[Ltd.]

Portraying any "hero" as either gentle, kind, generous or peaceful is rather impossible in total war The only thing that might get people offended (who gets offended by this anyway ? it is a game... ) is the character description or his / her 3D representation being "inaccurate" .
All these characters , heroes if you like, acted as was necessary for them to achieve their political and / or military goals. Were they gentle, kind and generous ? We will never know for sure I guess. They probably did kill people themselves in their youth and career and also ordered, as military leaders, their men to raid and loot settlements, take and burn cities, perhaps even kill prisoners if the situation asked for it etc etc. So they weren't exactly meek as a lamb.
Nonetheless, we will try to represent Salah al-Din, Vlad the impaler, and any other important figure as accurate as we can based on what sources we have at our disposal.
By the way, as far as I know the things Vlad did were a tad bit exaggerated by the Saxons in Transylvania. So essentially he was also a victim of slander

[Kjertesvein]

It's understandable as they would likely receive violent threats and lots of critiscm and abuse if they portrayed such generals/leaders accurately.

In all my years on this site, I've never heard this being an actual problem, because I don't think anyone care. If they tried, I would probably bore them to death with my walls of text explaining why they are wrong. The exception is the Empire of Georgia, but I've said enough already. (please be merciful, Georgians. *hastily bows head in shame*)

He is mostly known as benevolent because he spared the Christians of Jerusalem. The Crusaders had slaughtered the population (Muslim, Jewish and others) when they took it. It doesn't make Saladin necessarily generous or kind, but rather someone that is not a bloodthirsty zealot. He is far from the only person like that of his era.

"How many well-guarded women were profaned, how many queens were ruled, and nubile girls married, and noble women given away, and miserly women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept hidden stripped of their modesty, and serious women made ridiculous, and women kept in private now set in public, and free women occupied, and precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things put to the test, and virgins dishonoured and proud women deflowered, and lovely women prostrated, and untamed ones tamed, and happy ones made to weep!"
-historian and poet ‘Imād al-Dīn, 1187. On the retake of Jerusalem by Saladin during the 3rd crusade. He is talking about the rape of Christian women of Jerusalem, of all ranks and all ages.

Death was often seen as preferable to rape, as can be witnessed by how Queen Marguerite, on the moment of learning that her husband was captured, asked her knight to "‘take off my head before they can also take me" (Joinville, Life of Saint Louis. 262-3). Or when King Balwdin rejected his Armenian wife in 1108 on suspicion that she might have been raped during capture (Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds of God through the Franks, trans. Levine (1997), p. 164.). Or when Renier Brus distanced himself from his wife, on the belief that she was raped while in captivity (Hodgson, Women, Crusading and the Holy Land, p. 149). This is also displayed when the crusaders won the battle of Antioch in 1098. Fucher of Chartres explain how they found women in the abandoned camp of the enemy, and how they impaled their lances in the womens bellies, and that the crusaders "did no evil." (Fulcher of Chartres, A History of theExpedition to Jerusalem: 1095-1127,trans. Ryan(1969) p.106.) While this is not an appropriate approach to pregnancy today, it testifies as the merciful thing to do to these slaves at that time. Sexual violence was not something to be taken lightly back then and to think either side were better, by our standards, is in my humble opinion laughable. If you wish to continue this off-topic discussion, feel free to shoot me a PM.

~Wille

[jim501]

In Kingdom of Heaven he was portrayed as a gentle, kind, and generous leader. This has become a popular myth but I'm not sure if that's the movies fault, Hollywood in general or something else.

Another good example could be Vlad the Impaler. The Romanians see him as a national hero who did no wrong. Will modders be careful not to cause offence and continue with these popular myths or will they be as accurate as possible? I wouldn't have a problem if they pleased those who believe that their hero was nothing but a good person. It's understandable as they would likely receive violent threats and lots of critiscm and abuse if they portrayed such generals/leaders accurately.

It it also interests me to see how modders would deal with Muslim Iberia. Another popular belief is that the Muslims were peaceful and respectful during their occupation of Iberia but of course this is told to us because it's dangerous to offend Muslims.

You say exctly what I said.
Those you mentoned were movies, where the historical figures are portrayed as actual characters and given a personality and motivation while in Total War they are blank slates.

The modders *can't* offend anyone because Total War in general doesnt portray personalities of generals or leaders.


I mean, I never saw any of that in any previous Total War, have you ?

[riskymonk]

I think people got upset if there was a slight inaccuracy in the description. For example the way they portrayed the Venetians in the Crusades expansion. Again, it's a popular belief that the Venetians were intending to use the 4th crusade to advance their own interests. Was a lot more complicated than that but at first glance at the story, it's understandable why people believe they were a rogue state.

I dont remember any descriptions of Generals however. But if you were to say that, for example, Saladin spared the lives of the Christians in Jeruselum because he did not want to draw the attention of the warring kings of Europe to his homeland, then this could really upset somebody who believed Saladin did it for moral & ethical reasons rather than political reasons. Please bare in mind the number of times he did execute the occupants of besieged cities if anybody wants to take issue with what I said.

@zsimmortal I'm interested to know where/what influenced your views on the above subjects. I'm not here to debate the history I'm just interested to know where you've read about Saladin, Vlad and the Reconquista.

At at the end of the day I'm just interested to know if these modders will be sensitive towards other people's views.

[zsimmortal]

"How many well-guarded women were profaned, how many queens were ruled, and nubile girls married, and noble women given away, and miserly women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept hidden stripped of their modesty, and serious women made ridiculous, and women kept in private now set in public, and free women occupied, and precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things put to the test, and virgins dishonoured and proud women deflowered, and lovely women prostrated, and untamed ones tamed, and happy ones made to weep!"
-historian and poet ‘Imād al-Dīn, 1187. On the retake of Jerusalem by Saladin during the 3rd crusade. He is talking about the rape of Christian women of Jerusalem, of all ranks and all ages.

I oversimplified. He allowed people the foreign Christians to go at a fee. The Natives we allowed to stay. Regardless of what type of chaos and violence you try to paint out of the taking of Jerusalem, Saladin was very clement compared to the traditional procedure for taking besieged cities, which was a thorough sacking, involving mass rape, murder, vandalism and pillaging. And this was AFTER the Crusaders had done just that to the local populace when they first took the city. So the few lines you throw are hardly convincing evidence that Saladin and his troops were not much more lenient.

Third Crusade was also after the retaking of Jerusalem.

Death was often seen as preferable to rape, as can be witnessed by how Queen Marguerite, on the moment of learning that her husband was captured, asked her knight to "‘take off my head before they can also take me" (Joinville, Life of Saint Louis. 262-3). Or when King Balwdin rejected his Armenian wife in 1108 on suspicion that she might have been raped during capture (Guibert of Nogent, The Deeds of God through the Franks, trans. Levine (1997), p. 164.). Or when Renier Brus distanced himself from his wife, on the belief that she was raped while in captivity (Hodgson, Women, Crusading and the Holy Land, p. 149). This is also displayed when the crusaders won the battle of Antioch in 1098. Fucher of Chartres explain how they found women in the abandoned camp of the enemy, and how they impaled their lances in the womens bellies, and that the crusaders "did no evil." (Fulcher of Chartres, A History of theExpedition to Jerusalem: 1095-1127,trans. Ryan(1969) p.106.) While this is not an appropriate approach to pregnancy today, it testifies as the merciful thing to do to these slaves at that time. Sexual violence was not something to be taken lightly back then and to think either side were better, by our standards, is in my humble opinion laughable. If you wish to continue this off-topic discussion, feel free to shoot me a PM.

~Wille

There's really nothing to discuss, as you're just saying that they raped some people instead of a full-scale sacking, which are pretty much equivalent in some twisted sense.

[Filips Augustus]

I oversimplified. He allowed people the foreign Christians to go at a fee. The Natives we allowed to stay. Regardless of what type of chaos and violence you try to paint out of the taking of Jerusalem, Saladin was very clement compared to the traditional procedure for taking besieged cities, which was a thorough sacking, involving mass rape, murder, vandalism and pillaging. And this was AFTER the Crusaders had done just that to the local populace when they first took the city. So the few lines you throw are hardly convincing evidence that Saladin and his troops were not much more lenient.

No, he allowed the Christians who could pay the fee to leave the city, the ones who couldn't were taken as slaves and what not. Also the reason he even negotiated with the besieged forces was because they threatened to destroy the Mosque inside the city if he didn't go to the negotiation table with them. Else he probably would have done the same as what happened in 1099.

[zsimmortal]

No, he allowed the Christians who could pay the fee to leave the city, the ones who couldn't were taken as slaves and what not. Also the reason he even negotiated with the besieged forces was because they threatened to destroy the Mosque inside the city if he didn't go to the negotiation table with them. Else he probably would have done the same as what happened in 1099.

He initially intended to sack the city. He said as much to Balian at first. A letter of Saladin later explains that he accepted to come to terms because he did not wish for more Muslims to die.

But beyond that, he actually had to defend himself from not massacring the population, which indicates that no one actually cared about the Crusader threats. As per 'The Crusades' (p. 359) :

By this measure, Saladin's conduct in autumn 1187 was relatively lenient. According to the customs of medieval warfare - which, broadly speaking, were shared and recognised by Levantine Muslims and Frankish Christians alike - the inhabitants of a besieged city who staunchly refused to capitulate right up until the moment that their fortifications were breached or overcome could expect harsh treatment. Typically, in such a situation, the defenders' opportunity to negotiate had passed and their men would be killed, their women and children enslaved. Even if the final settlement in Jerusalem was heavily influenced by Balian's threats, by the norms of the day the terms that Saladin did agree were generous - and, more important still, they were honoured.

The sultan also acted with a marked degree of courtesy and clemency in his dealings with his aristocratic 'equals' among the Franks. Balian of Ibelin was forgiven for breaking his promise not to remain in Jerusalem, and an escort was even provided to take Maria Comnena to Tyre. Reynald of Châtillon's widow, Stephanie of Milly, was likewise released without any demand for ransom.

[...] The sultan's willingness to allow the Franks to depart with their possessions also limited the amount of plunder. Patriarch Heraclius apparently left the city weighed down with treasures, but 'Saladin made no difficulties, and when he was advised to sequestrate the whole lot for Islam, replied he would not go back on his word. He only took 10 dinars from Heraclius, and let him go to Tyre under heavy guard.'

Mind you, the 2 holiest sites were already desecrated when the city were recaptured, as the Dome had become the Templum Domini and the Aqsa mosque had become the Templars' headquarters.

So this is pretty much why he is considered to be honourable and lenient. I don't think any other siege or battle would indicate clemency, but this is an exceptional case, hence the reputation.

[Filips Augustus]

Interesting, I agree with you that the average commander would just sack the city and exterminate the population, as a revenge act of what happened in 1099. Therefore Saladin was also an exceptional case .

[Slytacular]

Well... Saladin is out of the game timeframe... so there is no need to represent him in the mod....

Anyways, the goal of the mod is to make each faction seem bad ass for their own reasons while still keeping the history correct to the current studies and reasonable speculations to fill the missing gaps. Each important character at the start of 1212 A.D. should have some kind of traits that reflect their impact on history. I have yet to confirm with the team on this, but I think negative traits on characters should only apply when they're ill or physically unable. Even if a character has committed some atrocious acts of crime against humanity that would now impede on the thankfully established basic acts of human rights, that character will get a positive trait that benefits them the next time they do some kind of atrocious action.

I hope I come across as some what insensitive to what is right from wrong, or good versus evil when it comes to depicting characters and factions. This shouldn't be a game that forces people to see from what is right from wrong, but enable people to choose an option to better understand why something is chosen and the effect it plays. Although, this mod is purely created for the sake of just having medieval themed total war battles. There is no hidden message to the game.

[Lord of The Woodland Realm]

Wow I did not expect this thread to get so much attention when I first started it... I totally agree with Slytacular and Warman who have spoken in here. Nationalism can be good for the modders to make sure no details of their ancestors are left out. However, the mod team shouldn't be responsible for portraying certain leaders or characters as good or evil. This is just a mod that brings the world and battles of the Middle Ages to Attila. It is supposed to just be fun... I don't think they are responsible for necessarily portraying the complex and controversial issues of this time period that are still debated today. But on that note, much love to the modders and Im really excited for when the campaign is released.