Medieval Kingdoms Total War: Kingdom of Georgia - REVAMP

[Khevsur]

Ltd


I'm a Amateur military historian. Other Georgians do not know Georgian Military history. Before me There was no helmets, no shields , no armour. I did it.



my friend is military historian Mamuka Tsurtsumia and Nika Khopheria. mamuka tsurtsumia is best georgian military historian. They gave me advice.

you repeated mistakes - broken crescent.

[hessam]

I'm a Amateur military historian. Other Georgians do not know Georgian Military history. Before me There was no helmets, no shields , no armour. I did it.

Lucem Mundum

you do not know georgian military History

Lucem Mundum
what have you done in georgian roster?
nothing

I have.

Damn, You're modest!!!

We don't care much for your drawings as far as historical accuracy is concerned. Don't get me wrong, some of them are really beautiful. But they don't stand as historical evidence.

[Lucem Mundum]

Ltd


I'm a military historian. Other Georgians do not know Georgian Military history. Before me There was no helmets, no shields , no armour. I did it.



my friend is military historian Mamuka Tsurtsumia and Nika Khopheria. mamuka tsurtsumia is best georgian military historian. They gave me advice.

Wither you're a military historian or not is irrelevant, many historians don't even know what they're talking about. Not to mention, most of your paintigns are either far fetched, or are lacking any form of historical evidence. It's really sad when you people keep on making stuff up, and it's hard to take any of what you post seriously when you want everyone to take it as face.

you repeated mistakes - broken crescent.

since when did you guys change your mind? I remember all the praise you gave the Georgian roster in the BC mod.

[Khevsur]

Lucem Mundum

you do not know georgian military History

[Lucem Mundum]

Ahhh here we go with the "you aren't from my county so you don't know my history" argument.

Edit: also it's funny when every time I point out something wrong in your posts you resort to personal attacks instead of providing sources.

[Khevsur]

Lucem Mundum
what have you done in georgian roster?
nothing

I have.

[Kjertesvein]

Many mistakes

I have something that needs to be brought up to your immediate attention, because I'm confused about the military history of Georgia. You are obviously a chief military historian of Georgia, an expert beyond measure, so you must know the answer to all the questions I have.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hopefully you can indulge me, because, by stating you grand title some how change the veracity of your statements profoundly, I am sure.

1.) Post verifiable evidence of fur on the shoulders was a requirement.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

By this, I mean to refer to the modern images you posted, that show untampered raw fur over the shoulders. My definition of verifiable evidence are historical accounts, inventories, manuscripts, etc. that can be dated as close as possible to the real life event.

What I don't consider verifiable evidence are modern illustrations like the three images below. It doesn't matter if Brad Pit and Angelina Jolie gave their blessing upon the holy Mary, the pope gave them a kiss and the late King of Georgia gave a thumbs up through the graveyard soil, I don't care. I want hard evidence.

2.) I also want relevant evidence, of the same standard, which explicitly refer to Tadzreuli did not, at any point, have axes at their disposal.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I want to see that axes were not allowed, in a normative sense (such as law or moral position). I also want to see that they actually never did it, in a descriptive sense (de facto).

If for some reason these things can't be proven, which I'm almost certain, then all your contributions of the same caliber henceforth in this thread are a matter of personal preference or interpretation. These two aspects are at the sole discretion of any artist, it's their prerogative. At which point, you should consider accepting fate as it is, because this pettifogging itch to constantly change is a thing which can not be satisfied.

~Wille

[Khevsur]

Kjertesvein
You do not believe me.
ok.
all deleted in roster - my helmets, my shields , my weapons.
What will remain?

I quit.


It is unfair

[Kjertesvein]

You do not believe me.

This is a matter of knowledge, not faith.

~Wille

[finix]

Kjertesvein
You do not believe me.
ok. please Do not use my works.
all deleted in roster - my helmets, my shields , my weapons.
What will?

I quit.


It is unfair

Khevsur do not repeat my mistake, to take it too personally. Accept that Ltd has allocated extremely lot of time to make as close as possible to that what you point for reference.
I don't have knowledge over Georgian history and not questioning your knowledge, but as an artist I see the work of Ltd. and your sketches and I think that has been achieved multi good resemblance.
As noted Ltd this is still a game and not a documentary series. And minor inaccuracies are eligible

[Levan]

@Kjertesvein nothing was requirement and personally i think they didn't use fur in battle. But since they are highlanders they have been using fur up to the modern days.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you didn't like the fox on the shoulders then i get it. If you dig in the paintings you will find more inappropriate things. But they were just his paintings and nothing more. What he was claiming does have verifiable evidences which you can find in the old thread.

Talking about Tadzreuli, you should note that they were nobles. There is only one maybe two miniatures where Georgians have axes. And in all other frescoes and miniatures they have swords or maces. Also since they were nobles, according to written sources, they mainly, if not only, used swords and maces. Axes were used by non-nobles.

[zsimmortal]

Talking about Tadzreuli, you should note that they were nobles. There is only one maybe two miniatures where Georgians have axes. And in all other frescoes and miniatures they have swords or maces. Also since they were nobles, according to written sources, they mainly, if not only, used swords and maces. Axes were used by non-nobles.

As someone working in the region, I have barely if ever seen a cavalryman in a miniature or bowl art with an axe. Yet it is an undisputable historical fact that turkish and persian cavalry would use a saddle hatchet in great numbers. Let's not get anal about an axe-wielding cavalry, seriously.

[Levan]

And most of the time he was posting relative frescoes and miniatures with or before his drawings. So don't be so critical if you weren't following the old thread.

[hessam]

And most of the time he was posting relative frescoes and miniatures with or before his drawings. So don't be so critical if you weren't following the old thread.

I follow every major thread on this forum. I have comments on the old Georgian thread so you'd know I've been following it.

And yes, he did post some frescoes and miniatures, but they didn't necessarily correspond with his paintings. Personally, when I'm working a roster I classify units, arms, and armor based on the amount of evidence for it as 1. must be, 2. better be, 3. could be, 4.why not and finally 5. no way.

Most of the stuff you or Khevsur insist on are either a "could be" or a "why not" and are left to the developer to decide whether to include them or not.

[Khevsur]

I drew only according to Georgian Military Historians , Georgian Archaeological Samples, Georgian Frescoes and Georgian manuscripts.

I Quit.


Levan is my friend.He speaks English well. Please listen to it

[Levan]

indeed some are "could be" and "why not" but most are "better be" or "must be" because they are based not only the frescoes but also on medieval written sources which are summed up in military history books. For example, did you read the book about mounted shock combat in Georgia which was posted in the thread? If you read it you will get what we rely on.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/journa...19542/viewport pages 83-108

P.S.
there you will find why maces and swords are "must be" and axes are "why not" at best.

[hessam]

indeed some are "could be" and "why not" but most are "better be" or "must be" because they are based not only the frescoes but also on medieval written sources which are summed up in military history books. For example, did you read the book about mounted shock combat in Georgia which was posted in the thread? If you read it you will get what we rely on.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/journa...19542/viewport pages 83-108

P.S.
there you will find why maces and swords are "must be" and axes are "why not" at best.

No I haven't read the book since I'm busy enough as it is on Rum and Ottomans.

A "must be" is something that was either a rule (like a uniform of some sort) or universally agreed upon, for example Roman legionaries carrying their famous scutum or Janissary soldiers wearing a folded white bork. A similar rule goes for a "no way".
A "better be" is something that's represented regularly in sources like armory inventories, frescoes, miniatures, and written documents (your swords and maces, if indeed what you say about the sources is right, are "better be"s in this sense). And axes here are exactly a "why not" so, you know, why the hell not?!!!

Also, this is my personal criteria for inclusion or exclusion of elements (be it a unit, a piece of armor, or a weapon) within a roster and other devs might have their own factors.

[Ltd.]

Khevsur: I do not doubt that you are an amateur military historian, that is why I tried to incorporate most of what you have posted, be it pictures of frescoes or simple drawings.
But as Hessam said, most of what you are disputing is stuff that noone on the face of the earth can know for certain.
Can you tell me with 100 % certainty, that tadzreuli never ever in their military career carried axes, for fear that those weapons are for non-nobles ? you cannot. Noone can.
You show me drawings that you made which are loosely or accurately (matter of interpretation) based on frescoes and descriptions. You have to consider that one single unit has 160 men. This is not Rome 1 where everyone looks exactly the same. Variation is needed and so I cannot give everyone the same maille armour and the same maille coif.

Everything, every single asset I gave the georgians is either very reasonable due to their location and thus having been influenced by the byzantines, seljuks, cumans, persia etc, or based on historical representations and other sources.
Again, you will recognize most if not all of your drawings and pictures you posted in many of the units, but that is just not enough for a full roster. There are 30 units as of now, and all those units have 160, 120 or 80 men.
Normally I wouldn´t bother explaining all this, but I appreciate that you have given us sources to work with since there are not that many pictorial sources available (or if it was such a universal knowledge, you wouldn´t have bothered drawing them ...), but I also expect from you and the goergian community to understand and accept that this is a game with possible shortcomings and that I / we cannot keep redoing units every single time there is something that you consider not 100 % accurate.

[Khevsur]

Ltd
Levan Sending you little mistakes list, Will not be Many work.
Good work my frend... 95% is done.

[Khevsur]

Kjertesvein
Tush-pshav-khevsur and Svans are highlanders. they are Shepherds and hunters . In Caucasus Mountains Coming Cold Winter