Topic: Real World Counterparts

[jack]

  At the time Zooooch,I believe they were conscripts,so they probably represented a good cross section of the populace.

 And to you McKnight,then Norway has some of the most beautiful stones in the world[not to mention expensive beer].

[McKnight]

Yea they got all kind of beautyful crystals and minerals 
Blondies, aahh 

[Zooooch]

Ahh, yes, I forgot about the whole, serve or get out policy.

Zooooch

[Donnachaidh]

I rather thought that the runes of the Dwarfs were reminiscent of the old Celtic writing of "Ogham". Secondly, Scottish troops fought alongside England since the fall of the Roman Empire, they were just so unpopular that modern History rarely includes this fact.

Zooooch

Pish,

The Scotti (as the Romans called the Irish) were united under Kenneth MacAlpine following the successful colonisation of what is now Scotland and absorbing the Picts and the Briton kingdom of Strathclyde after becoming king of Dal Riata in the 9th century - before that there was no Scotland.

The Scotti were Q culture Gaels, quite different from P culture Ancient Britons - different languages, customs, and dress.

England didn't exist until the invading Germanic tribes formed it in the 6th/7th Century after pushing back the Sub Roman Britons in to Cornwall and Wales (with Cornwall ultimately falling, although he Cornish language was a living language until the 19th century and  it is now being promoted in schools again in Cornwall)

Scots fought with the Saxons (and against them) as indeed the Saxons fought with the Scots during the end of the Dark Ages (Malcolm employed Saxons against MacBeth and MacBeth employed Norman cavalry against Malcolm) - BUT we are not talking national armies.

Pretty much a time of peace until Edward the first, Scots national army fight English army despite times of peace right up until the death of Elizabeth I and when James VI becomes James I of England. 

Charles 1st declares war on Scotland in 1638 and looses
Scots enter the War of Three Nations (English Civil War) on the side of Parliament in 1643, playing a large part in helping Parliament in winning Marston Moor. 
1644 Montrose joins the Royalists, and a second Scots army starts campaigning in Scotland against the Covenanter's.
2nd and 3rd Civil Wars sees the Scots army fighting Parliament
Glencairn uprising - Scots Vs Parliament
Murdering Years - Royalist Scots giving payback to the Covenanting Scots.
1685 Rebelion - no Scots involved
1689 Rebelion - Not Scots Vs England as some would have it, but for the most part Scots Catholic supporters fighting Scots Government troops
1707 - Act of union - we're all friends - hussar

So all in all, the Army of the Covenant (which was a national army) did fight for the English between 1643 and 1646, but it was a traditional field army with one fo the best artillery trains in Europe (thanks to Alexander Hamilton) with it's infantry being armed with musket and pike on a 1:1 ration fighting with Swedish tactics best belonging to the Empire's detachment rule.  Not really dwarfs then? (And of course we are talking post Norman invasion Scotland, so we are also not talking about clan structure as this was a formal army and not a feudal army - which is what the highland contingents usually were.  Not to say you don't get Highlanders in formal regiments, they just have no clan structure.  Gordon's, Fraser's, and the Strathbogie regiment being famous examples.)

The Celts also had some of the most wide ranging style of armour in the Medevil Ages, being as they were almost the best Metal workers, you may find that the Goths and Vendals coppied their workings. (a little known fact: the Celts inhabited manland Europe until the romans kicked them out)

Scots armour...
Most armour was imported from Germany - same with swords.  Maile was common enough with nobles in Gaul, but not in Briton and not by with the Scots.  Up until the medieval period did armoured rank and file become more prevalent, and event then we are talking for the most part padded armour. (Not too unlike the Brotonnian MAA)

I take it you mean Vandal rather than Vendal.  Vandal's being a people who sacked Rome.

Here's a Vendal helmet from Norway, 7th Century



I would appreciate you giving primary evidence for some of your claims as they would turn Scots academics heads for sure.  It could be your wording, but the impression you give is from an alternate Scotland from a parallel world.

And yes, the Celts covered most of lower Europe. La Tene period showing them from northern Greece up to Briton.  Briton wasn't as "Celtic" as mainland Europe as there were still influences from the people they displaced.  Chariots were still being used in the British Isles over 500 years after they fell out of use on the continent.

B'fhearr leam breacan uallach.

Slainté,
Andy

[Elieress]

(SNIP) or that they were stronger than other people.

An interesting thing though.. The average height in Scandinavia in the viking period was 5 ot 7 cm taller than the average height in the rest of europe.

This (according to the danish national museum) might be because the high level of trade in scandinavia at the time lead to a more varied and thus a more healthy diet.

[Fafnir]

Elieress: I don't know the actual numbers but I have no reason to doubt yours, and yes, the average hight in Scandinavia was (and still is, I'm 6.2'...) higher than in Continental Europe and the British Isles, but that doesn't mean Vikings and or Norse people in general were physically stronger. There is no point to me bringing it up really, it's just that I must admit that as a Norwegian I embarrass easily by the "übermensch" quality often attributed to the Norse population during the Dark Ages by the English-speaking world in particular. And thus I try to correct it when I can.

Donnachaidh: You seem to know alot about Scottish/British history, may I ask what your background is?

[Zooooch]

I haden't heard that the Scandinavians were largely involved in trade and therefour got a more varried diet. Makes sence though.

Zooooch

[McKnight]

Hehe Fafnir i dont think the Norse were ubermensch but just organized and well trained. This making a raid very easy on a small village at the coast of England
But I'm proud of the fact that the vikings took what is known today as Constantinople 

[Zooooch]

Who eventually took Constantinopal? When cannons were used?

Zooooch

(as you may ave guessed, I focus my knowledge of history on modern history 1700-2000)

[McKnight]

oh sorry its called Istanbul now, mixed them up 

And no they didnt have cannons, it was in the viking age. I cant find the excact year.
The Vikings had laid siege upon Istanbul, but the chieftain died during the siege, and the vikings then asked the leader of the Byzantine empire to bury the chieftan in their church.
They were allowed and the best viking soldiers came in unarmed. What the Byzanties didnt know, was that the chest/coffin was filled with weapons.
The vikings took their weapons and opened the gate. Conquering the city.

The fun part is, that they thought it was Rome that they had conquered

[Zooooch]

I'm sure that cannons blew down the walls sometime...

[RGB]

Yes, I'd like to know when exactly do you think the Vikings took Constantinople?

If you're referring to Oleg's raids or Sviatoslav's Bulgarian campaigns, then they didn't take the city. Threatened it a bit, yes, but didn't take the walls. And they were Rus, not Vikings proper. Some of the druzhina had Viking names, and the princes may have been of Scandinavian extraction (the names say so at least), but the majority of Rus forces were probably recruited locally, from the Turcic and Slavic tribes of the area.

[McKnight]

I read it somewhere but i just cant remember where
Also the Rus where originally swedes going down Volga and settling along the river

[Fafnir]

A few (dull...?) notes:

Byzantine chroniclers didn't make it easy for modern historians. They used the term Varangians (well, the Greek equivalent...) about raiders, traders and mercenaries of Norse heritage, but just as often they also used the word about Germanic people in general and sometime, just to add to the confusion, they used it for people of Western European origin too, like the Normans. Then there are the Norse sagas, and as everyone knows, the Skalds had a very liberal perception of "the truth". It is the cause of great controversy, as is the whole relationship between the Byzantine Empire and the Scandinavian peoples. I was fortunate enough to follow a class last year by one of the world's leading (on this particular topic) Byzantine paleographers who were here to research just that and my hope is that one day he will publish a book on the matter. Should be an interesting read.

[RGB]

I read it somewhere but i just cant remember where
Also the Rus where originally swedes going down Volga and settling along the river

1. The Primary Russian Chronicle says "they were of the Varangian tribe, like others are Danes, or Swedes, or Germans, these were Rus". So not Swedes, just some other non-slavic tribe.

2. Not down the Volga, surely? The Bulgars and the Khazars would have minded very much. You mean the Dniepr, right? And they didn't exactly "settle"  as much as "took over" existing Slavic and whatever else towns. Like Kiev and Novgorod and Polotsk. They may or may not have founded Ladoga. Russians didn't settle the Volga until the 16th century anyway.

3. They were at best a Scandinavian military eilte in a non-Scandinavian nation.

[Mystic Force]

The original source of fanatsy would be Tolken and i did notice that elves seem to have names originating in celtic names of which they are a part of irish mythology and anything evil has a saxon name

[RGB]

anything evil has a saxon name

What, like Gand-alfr? And Eo-mer? And anything Rohan? Rohan = Saxons. It's the Dunlendings that are Evil. Quite the reverse.

[wisenheimer]

And don't forget the Dwarfs names. 

[Donnachaidh]

Donnachaidh: You seem to know alot about Scottish/British history, may I ask what your background is?

I'm a Scot in exile (living down here in Shandy-land) and a keen historian currenly reading up on the Dark Ages (Saxon incursian and the wars of MacBeth) as well as having done a lot of research on 17th and 18th century Scotland (and Britain as a whole)

[MixnMash]

This has been an interesting read.

I think that the Bretts are based on a period when it is difficult to divide 'English' and 'French' cultures. Perhaps we could say that they are based on Aquitaine 

The Rus are often described as having descended from Norse settlement/ invasion (much like the Normans) but RGB's explanation is surely closer to the truth for both examples. Indeed, older GW fluff on Kislev described the nobles as a Norse-descended warrior elite (WFRP 'Something Rotten in Kislev').

A genetic survey in Britain found that it was impossible to divide those people (men) with Anglo-Saxon and Danish ancestry as they had originated from the same genetic pool. Conversely those of Norwegian descent were identified as a distinct group. Just goes to show what a little bit of freezing cold sea can do to population hybridity!

Modern Scandinavians are almost as tall as the Dutch! - diet certainly has an impact (see height gain in Japanese) but there is definately a genetic element.

[Mystic Force]

One genetic trait i found was that people from the celtic parts of the british isles have wide feet and long toes, those in the eastern areas of britain (east anglia, essex, middlesex, kent) who come from the saxons have narrower feet and stubby toes.  This was clear from the people I used to work with in North London, I and other people from the west (Ireland, wales, Devon, Cornwall) had different shaped feet than the locals.

And if you are wondering why I noticed other peoples feet its because we had to be searched every time we left work including removing your shoes, because of the nature of my empolyer

[Zooooch]

If I'm not mistaken (point me out if I am) Both the French and English were the descendants of Celtic tribes, while Germany, Hungary (Huns) and other central countries were descended from Gauls. Where did the Spanish come from?

Zooooch

[Lord Etharion]

If I'm not mistaken (point me out if I am) Both the French and English were the descendants of Celtic tribes, while Germany, Hungary (Huns) and other central countries were descended from Gauls. Where did the Spanish come from?

Zooooch

I'm not an expert, but:

- Gauls ARE a celtic tribe.
- English are a mishmash resulting from multiple invasions: First there were celts, then some romans, then a whole lot of angles, saxons and jutes from denmark, then a whole lot of vikings from denmark (hence the viking occupied part of england being called the danelaw), then a smaller group of Norman invaders, from scandanavia via northern france.

- French decend from the germanic franks who moved in in the dark ages/migrations period, and the gauls under the romans who previously occupied the area.

- Spanish are decended from Visigoths, the previously occupying Ibero-Celts, and (presumably) some Moors.

- Huns aren't germanic. They just caused the Germanic tribes to move west.

NB: Most of my knowlege comes from a combination of RTW and wikipedia, neither of which are stunningly reliable sources. In particular, I'm assuming that germanic settlers didn't inflict genocide on the celts whose land they conquered.

[Donnachaidh]

If I'm not mistaken (point me out if I am) Both the French and English were the descendants of Celtic tribes, while Germany, Hungary (Huns) and other central countries were descended from Gauls. Where did the Spanish come from?

Zooooch

The "English" were the final state of the Germanics who invaded in the 5th century.

Before that you had a P culture Celtic people who were shoved north and west following said invasion with the only "Celtic" kingdom remaining being Wales. Which ceased being a Kingdom in the 14th century.

The French are the descendants of primarily the Franks, another Germanic tribe.  The Bretons were the last refuge of P culture Celts in western Europe. The Normans were the francosised Norse who were invited to govern the duchy. (They took on the look and feel of the Frank war machine after 1 generation)

Following the fall of the western Roman Empire there was no longer a Gallic culture in western Europe.  The Gallic war machine had become so heavily integrated in to the Roman army that when the Germanic people moved south and took over, what culture remained was absorbed by the conquering people.

The Spanish also had a Celtic influence (The Celt Iberians) but that was not throughout.  Don't know a lot about them but they would have had the original Bronze Age people there, same as British Celtic influence wasn't as strong as Gaul because of the influence of the Beaker People (Bronze Age) who hadn't had their culture stripped by the invading Celtic people.

[reiksmarshall]

On a completely different and somewhat abstract note, I have tried to pinpoint Chaos Dwraves on the real-life scale, and have eventuallty settles on18/early 19th century british troops (the ones in india, not napleonic) mixed with some persian culture and a bit of high fantasy/ dramatic license thrown in to make things interesting. The blunderbusses are the nearest thing to muskets as you're going to get, hobgoblins are the equivalent of sepoys, drafets into help, wold riders are marjrata cavalry, they have rockets (very indian in this period), bolt throwers (light cannons?) and the earth shaker (very heavy cannon?). There are a few odd units that defy classifciation (im fairly certain the british/indian army didnt have bull centaurs or lammusu in their ranks), but this is a fantasy game after all.

And the spanish (modern day sense) are descendants from romanised spanish iberians, but with a good mix of culture from the invading almohads and moorish influence. So first italy, then africa, then the french, then portuguese and british - has any country not tried to invade spain in europe?