Medieval Kingdoms Total War: KINGDOM OF ENGLAND (REVAMP)

[Minnesinger]

Great work indeed, is the french roster going to be revamped as well?

[Heisenburrg]

French roster already got a great revamp, it´s perfect like it is now imo. At some point the revamping has to end, except for factions which really need it.

Kingdom of England looks up to date now too. Really, really nice indeed.

[banskie100]

Update : You can see now the King's Bodyguard from Tier 1, 2 and 3.

[zsimmortal]

Very solid work banksie, hope to see this kind of attention to texturing for major factions like France and the Holy Roman Empire.

Only thing I'm wondering is if you used more than the one soldier head model? Ltd re-rigged quite a few recently and yours seem to be quite similar. Maybe I'm just seeing poorly though.

Texture also seems a bit off here :

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[banskie100]

Very solid work banksie, hope to see this kind of attention to texturing for major factions like France and the Holy Roman Empire.

Only thing I'm wondering is if you used more than the one soldier head model? Ltd re-rigged quite a few recently and yours seem to be quite similar. Maybe I'm just seeing poorly though.

Texture also seems a bit off here :

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Oh thank you very much zsi! By the way, that texture is intentional. Is it look wierd? If it bothers you, I will change it. hehe
Yeah you are right, I used the "soldierhead" model. I didn't use the new ones by Ltd.

[zsimmortal]

Oh thank you very much zsi! By the way, that texture is intentional. Is it look wierd? If it bothers you, I will change it. hehe
Yeah you are right, I used the "soldierhead" model. I didn't use the new ones by Ltd.

IMO it looks weird, but if that's the design you wanted, then that is your choice.

[banskie100]

IMO it looks weird, but if that's the design you wanted, then that is your choice.

yeah it looks off to be honest, I will change it now.

[Guiflick]

Awesome work Banskie!!

[Filips Augustus]

Looking great! Also cool to see that you updated the tier 3 Aristocrats as well .

[banskie100]

@Guiflick : thanks man!

@Filips : yeah! do you like it? Well that is more close to English thingy. I removed the gothic and milanese spaulders. It looks bit unique now. hehe

[Filips Augustus]

Absolutely, well done! Let's hope we will see some more factions from you eh .

[Heisenburrg]

One question though; Why no crossbows at all? Yeah, the english focused on longbows and I know its an intentional gameplay weakness, but to have no crossbows at all seems a bit unrealistic since the crossbow was such an important weapon in the medieval. Maybe one or two (weak) crossbow militias would solve that problem.

[banskie100]

One question though; Why no crossbows at all? Yeah, the english focused on longbows and I know its an intentional gameplay weakness, but to have no crossbows at all seems a bit unrealistic since the crossbow was such an important weapon in the medieval. Maybe one or two (weak) crossbow militias would solve that problem.

you can have the hanseatic crossbowmen or the mercenary crossbowmen. Though english used those weapons on sieges, they had only few of them.

[Heisenburrg]

Ok, mercenary crossbowmen sounds like a good compromise

[chleader]

England needed a revamp for a long time now, glad to see it done. Fantastic job btw

[Kjertesvein]

@Slytacular.


Short answer:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

www.dictionary.com/browse/targe - a small, round shield; a target or buckler.
http://archive.org/stream/concisedic...e/432/mode/2up - A small round shield.

Long answer:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In terms of intellectual honesty I'd say skepticism is something which is admirable rather than a weakness. You say uncertainty as if it's a reason for dismissal, which I think is unfortunate. The fact that he doesn't include a footnote for the definition of all these shield types, however, is laziness in my opinion. I'll get back to definitions later. Anyway, to be precise, Richardson stated the following

The targes (or targets) were most probably circular shields in the fourteenth century, and certainly were such in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Page 85. As far as he can tell, the most probably case is this: these were circular shields, as opposed to the rectangular shields of the pavises (pavis, pavys). The third shield type is the knightly shield, scuta, the heater shield. The main differentiating characteristic of these types is the form of the shield, not size. Size is something that were added on to the description, i.e. ‘lx magnis targiis de armis Regis depictis xxiiij li.’ "large targes". I've not been able to locate it, but I wonder if 'small pavises' for the hand, while I question if they were even in England, (which you refer to as tartsche) would be something like minitus pavis as an example. Other adjectives I've seen were long pavises, etc.

Definitions, the word Targe or Targets appear to originate from Old Norse, 1000 AD Targa. At the wake of the 1300, a time when Icelandic Sagas which included the words Targa were written (Njal's Saga), I think the general consensus of the form of these targes is meaning shields that were round. This is because in the minds of the people that lived at that moment, the word targe would conceptualize to them a "viking shield", because that is the origin of the word for them. For the record, if you have other ideas or definitions, let me know, but they all seem to go in line with Richardson's definition of a round shield.
www.dictionary.com/browse/targe - a small, round shield; a target or buckler.
http://archive.org/stream/concisedic...e/432/mode/2up - A small round shield.

The word Tartche is the German equivalent of targe. All of which basically mean shield in it's most general sense. It appear that the categorization of different targes is a later innovation that came to be in the 16th century in combination with jousting. The word split up in different newer words with the suffix -targe depending on a wide assortment of shield types. This is something which you correctly pointed to with the cannon reference, as in, being categorically minded is a some-what modern characteristic. Despite this, I can't escape the idea that Richardson is on to something when he has been translating the primary sources and found a commonality of the three terms: pavis, scuta and targe. Three words which would no doubt have aided the 14th century Keepers of the Privy Wardrobe, who administrated the Tower of London, to differentiate between the 1000s of shields in constant circulation based on the most important characteristics, the silhouette of the actual objects themselves.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tartsche

Lastly, this isn't proof of anything, but it's an interesting correlation. From what I've inferred from looking at period artwork, the smaller square shield is a 14th century innovation, possibly central/eastern Europe. However, it's not until the 2nd and 3rd quarter of the 15th century and beyond where it's shown with increasing regularity. It's especially in a setting that has to do with the equestrian class, and sometimes related to the tournament.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/sear...s=%22pavise%22
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/sear...gs=%22targe%22
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/sear...s=%22target%22
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/sear...=%22buckler%22

~Wille

[Caucasian Iberia]

B E A utiful. Work in progress and waiting for next update.

[Slytacular]

I appreciate historians when they type or write "I don't know" in their books, studies, and essays because it opens up questions for nerds like us to research further. It is only the professors who tell people to type like you know what the hell you're talking about is what pisses me off.

dictionary.com is a modern dictionary that refers to the latest definition of what a targe is, which is a small little round shield that people like the Jacobite Scots in the 18th century would hang on their backs. The Old Norse Icelandic dictionary could be potentially correct, but there are two weaknesses to this argument. If what you say that the targe refers to the shield from 1000AD, round shields according to present history were still relatively the norm during that era, and their shapes and sizes varied. The other weakness in that argument is that the Old Norse dictionary is reconstructed from modern people which by default has a modern dictionary term.

According to what you present as evidence for the evolution of the shields according to medieval art, you are most likely correct.

However, the next question I would ask is why the F would people want to mass produce small crappy round shields for war? Sure they are conveniently small enough to personally carry around comfortably, but they suck butt when it comes to dealing with missiles, and heater shields were the ultimate design of the early 14th century. You see heater shields pretty regularly in art along with pavise shields.

Though, I'll admit, the answer would be too obvious to admit since the round shields are pretty common in English art too.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

targes possibly concaved shields?

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

I appreciate historians when they type or write "I don't know" in their books, studies, and essays because it opens up questions for nerds like us to research further. It is only the professors who tell people to type like you know what the hell you're talking about is what pisses me off.

dictionary.com is a modern dictionary that refers to the latest definition of what a targe is, which is a small little round shield that people like the Jacobite Scots in the 18th century would hang on their backs. The Old Norse Icelandic dictionary could be potentially correct, but there are two weaknesses to this argument. If what you say that the targe refers to the shield from 1000AD, round shields according to present history were still relatively the norm during that era, and their shapes and sizes varied. The other weakness in that argument is that the Old Norse dictionary is reconstructed from modern people which by default has a modern dictionary term.

According to what you present as evidence for the evolution of the shields according to medieval art, you are most likely correct.

However, the next question I would ask is why the F would people want to mass produce small crappy round shields for war? Sure they are conveniently small enough to personally carry around comfortably, but they suck butt when it comes to dealing with missiles, and heater shields were the ultimate design of the early 14th century. You see heater shields pretty regularly in art along with pavise shields.

Though, I'll admit, the answer would be too obvious to admit since the round shields are pretty common in English art too.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

targes possibly concaved shields?

Allow me to prove you the *BLEEP* Wrong with one link. XD

http://imgur.com/a/0A1vU

That is all my research into shields in late manuscripts, that are heaters.

While rarer than a buckler I'd argue they were in existence most likely out of wood as you can see, they are curved to defect blows, but small enough to hand on a sword belt, I say wood as this provides a significant advantage over metal in terms of shock absorption, and would explain why none have been recovered, furthermore I show you this: http://collections.glasgowmuseums.co...tml?oid=243239 from my native city, I'd argue this type of "hand paviace" would be common, as common as the classic bukler we all think of.

Now while I am guilty of trying to give the fully armored man the shield of my childhood, there is no sin in variation!

In terms of greatswords, I'd certainly say they are far differnet to a Zwihander, is it possilbe to include some of these swords in with the pole-axes? I think they would be used like "Hero swords " in movies, two hands, but one handed technique. Mike Loades has a fine documentary centering on hand and a half sword and how they were used, he also went hunting with Our dear Mr Capwell in another. XD



Mike Loades

[nomercysniper]

Great work on this! One of my main worries was getting to T3 and every unit being armed and armoured to the teeth, glad you've avoided that!

If I had to pick (and I am truly nitpicking) some of the textures in the T3 MAA tabards look a little stiff, more so in the solid block colours (red ones) than the mixed!