Factions In real life

[GenericPerson3457]

I wondered the other day: Do the factions in native have their real life counterparts?
I got this far:

Nords: Vikings
Veagirs: Russians
Khergits: Mongols or Golden Horde
Sarranids: The Abassids

I am unsure of the swadians and rhodoks. Can i ask for help?

[Adahn (´ ᴥ `)]

Yea, it still exists.

[SPETSNAZKITTEN]

Tuidjy eredeti hozzászólása:

SPETSNAZKITTEN eredeti hozzászólása:

forgive my ignorance, but which faction would be the closest to, the Persians?

Persians need horse archers, and only the Khergits have those. Some of the Sarranid equipment is closer in appearance to what the Persians wore, though.

The fact is, the zenith of the Persian Empire predates the historical period in which Warband is loosely set. If you really want to play a faction that closely resembles them, you should be looking at mods.

thank you for the reply, any mods in suggestion...

[The Struggler]

if you want to be more accurate for sarranids, they are samanian empire from old persia wich they were mount archer specialists

[The Struggler]

SPETSNAZKITTEN eredeti hozzászólása:

Tuidjy eredeti hozzászólása:

Persians need horse archers, and only the Khergits have those. Some of the Sarranid equipment is closer in appearance to what the Persians wore, though.

The fact is, the zenith of the Persian Empire predates the historical period in which Warband is loosely set. If you really want to play a faction that closely resembles them, you should be looking at mods.

thank you for the reply, any mods in suggestion...

FLoris of course

[niro]

I feel like Vaegirs are partly Hungarian. The polish word for Hungary - Węgry sounds similair to Vaegir.

[The Cunning Fox (raZoleg)]

Vaegirs is a play on the word Varyag. They are Russians, has nothing to do with the huns. Not to mention that Boyars were only in Russia.

This is so obvious that discussion is completely unecessary and Swadia comes from the changed German word for the region of Swabia.

----

P.S. What's with the hordes of necromancers in the threads? Has the zombie apocalypse finally happened?

[Tuidjy]

razoleg (狡猾的狐狸) eredeti hozzászólása:

Not to mention that Boyars were only in Russia.

The title is originally Bulgar, and it spread from there to the lands (occasionally) ruled by their empire: present day Romania, Moldania, Wallachia, Macedonia, Serbia, etc. When the Bulgarian Empire was wiped out, the title survived in Russia, from where it spread to their conquests, such as Galicia, the Caucasus khanates, etc. The title became popular in Poland and Lithuania, due to Rus noblemen fleeing the Mongol conquerors, and to Galician noblemen keeping their titles when the Poles took over.

So, no, boyar is not a strictly Russian title, but I agree that the Vaegirs are post-Mongol Russians more than they are anything else.

[The Cunning Fox (raZoleg)]

Do not mix up the town of Bulghar and the actual Bulgarian state. it came to Russia from the South East, not from the established Bulgar state in the West.

Boyar is not really a title, as it is a class of noblemen. Specifically - a parlaiment of sorts, meant to give the king daily advice on the matters (not ride in the field with troops like the Druzhina is supposed to).

[Tuidjy]

Huh? Bolghar is in Volga Bulgaria, but there is no record of them ever using the title 'boyar' before being conquered by the Russians.

There are records of the Bulgar in present day Bulgaria using the title in the 9th century in Greek texts, and in Bulgarian texts in the 10th century. The Volga Bulgars used Turkic titles (emir, bei) according to Russian records from the time of Svyatoslav of Russia.

[The Cunning Fox (raZoleg)]

Bulgarians are the turkic tribes themselves, that's where the name of the country comes from. They've moved in 7th century.

[Tuidjy]

razoleg (狡猾的狐狸) eredeti hozzászólása:

Bulgarians are the turkic tribes themselves, that's where the name of the country comes from. They've moved in 7th century.

Bulgars may have been a Turkic tribe. This is somewhat disputed, but I personally believe it. They also were probably named Bulgar because they were freely mixing with other people, even at the time of Great Bulgaria (the predecessor state of Bulgaria-on-Volga, Bulgaria-in-Italy, Bulgaria-in- Scythia-Minor, etc. If they ever stuck to something it was the 'mixing', becausew mixing they did.

But Bulgarians, as the people living West of the Black Sea, are thoroughly Slavicized. The Bulgar conquered the region and became a military and administrative elite, but they were just a drop in the ocean compared to the local Thracian, Slavic, and other Byzantine populations. DNA studies of modern Bulgarians show them as mostly Slavic, little different from other Southern Slavs.

The only people who dispute this do it for political reasons... just as those who try to diminish the importance of the Bulgar heritage. It is a matter of national policy for Turkey, Russia, Serbia, Macedonia, etc. to deny the Bulgarians Slavic heritage. Many nationalistic elements in Bulgaria are also embracing the Turkic, Asia Minor, Mongol and even Chinese theories to claim some manifest destiny.

As far as I am concerned, everything but historical records and DNA is so much bullsнiт.

And to come back to the point, 'boyar' is a Slavic title, of Bulgar origin. It probably originates from a Turkic root, but it has been Slavicized, just like Bulgarians.

It started as "boila" (clearly Turkic, or Oghuric if you prefer) but mutated into the Slavic gendered "bolyar", and eventually the 'l' became just a softener, as in other Slavic languages, to produce "boyar". The word appears dozens of times in Bulgar and Byzantine documents from the 9th and 10th century. It does not appear anywhere else until Bulgaria becomes a powerful empire and starts spreading over Southeastern Europe.

[The Cunning Fox (raZoleg)]

What does Russia have to gain from denying "slavic" Bulgarian roots? If anything, it's the Bulgarians who deny this to curry favours with the West today, claiming that they never were a part of "Eastern Europe", akin to Poles thinking that speaking latin and having catholicism makes them somehow more "civilised" than they really are.

Historically, for Russia it was essential to use the slavic roots of any balkan nation to justify the protection against Turkish aggression. Denying the slavic roots of Bulgaria would be shooting the Russian Empire in the foot as that damages the casus belli.

Bulgarians are a mix of Slavic, Turkick tribes from Volga and the actual Turkish (from the Ottoman occupation). As for Boyar, my point being is that it was most widely used in Russia and came from the Volga Bulgarians (some people say that Bulgaria comes from Volga->Volgar->Bolgar->Bulgar). Point being - Bulghars moved out in the 7th century, just when Rus' was gaining power, therefore some of those words have gained popularity in the ancient Russian language.

Bulgaria was not really an Emprie, to say that much, yet I would like to see those texts and references. I only ever heard of Boyar in Russian context, both from domestic and foreign sources.

[Tuidjy]

razoleg (狡猾的狐狸) eredeti hozzászólása:

What does Russia have to gain from denying "slavic" Bulgarian roots? If anything, it's the Bulgarians who deny this to curry favours with the West today, claiming that they never were a part of "Eastern Europe", akin to Poles thinking that speaking latin and having catholicism makes them somehow more "civilised" than they really are.

Russia, and later the Soviet Union has denied Bulgarians' Slavic origins in order to advance Serbia's cause. During the 1885 Serbian invasion of Bulgaria, it was one of the reasons given by Russia for withdrawing its officers from Bulgaria, expecting a quick defeat. Later, before Tito turned his back on Stalin, the USSR repeatedly described Bulgaria as 'not really Slavic'. And of course, to this day, Serbia and Macedonia call Bulgarians Tatar.

Historically, for Russia it was essential to use the slavic roots of any balkan nation to justify the protection against Turkish aggression. Denying the slavic roots of Bulgaria would be shooting the Russian Empire in the foot as that damages the casus belli.

Yes, Russia gave Bulgaria its independence 1878, and used the Bulgarians Slavic roots as a justification for war. Afterward, the story becomes a lot muddier, and Russia became a lot less consistent about including Bulgaria as a Slavic country. Mostly, yes. Always, no.

It's all water under the bridge, now. Russian imperial ambitions, the Bulgarian national problem, Yugoslavia as a concept, a Greek Constantinople... dead dreams all, apart from the first one.

Bulgarians are a mix of Slavic, Turkick tribes from Volga and the actual Turkish (from the Ottoman occupation). As for Boyar, my point being is that it was most widely used in Russia and came from the Volga Bulgarians (some people say that Bulgaria comes from Volga->Volgar->Bolgar->Bulgar). Point being - Bulghars moved out in the 7th century, just when Rus' was gaining power, therefore some of those words have gained popularity in the ancient Russian language.

Now this is just ignorance. There was a Great Bulgaria before the Bulgar diaspora. Volga Bulgaria is one of the splinter kingdoms from Great Bulgaria. To claim that the name Bulgar, which existed for at least one century before the Bulgars were pushed to Volga comes from Volga is... something that only someone with an agenda could be pushing. And once again, Volga Bulgaria did not use boyar, it used bei until the Mongols and Russian took over. By that time Bulgarians had been using it and recording it for centuries.

Bulgaria was not really an Emprie, to say that much,

It was not a big empire, but it met the definition, and is accepted as one by historians. At its largest, it was greater than many other accepted empires, and was recognized as such by both the Frankish and Byzantine empires, at the time when those three were the greatest in Europe.

yet I would like to see those texts and references. I only ever heard of Boyar in Russian context, both from domestic and foreign sources.

9th Century Bulgarian inscription[groznijat.tripod.com], using Greek letters.

10th Century Byzantium manuscript[en.wikipedia.org], Constantine Porphyrogenitus, de Cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, II, specifically folio 46-7. You can find it online[homepage.mac.com] usually, but the FTP is down right now.

And innumerable references ever since then.

And I repeat, at that time, and up until the 13th century, Volga Bulgaria used Turkic titles, as 'emir' and 'bei'. That is easily confirmed by Russian manuscripts.

Listen, this is not something that is remotely controversial. Accepted science, except if you subscribe to really out there theories. Even the Russian Wiki agrees, although it's buried deep in the text. "Впервые бояре (боляре) появляются в Первом Болгарском царстве. Боярами называли представителей военной аристократии."

You sound Russian. Read the Russian Wiki, at the very least, before starting to advance crazy theories like "Bulgar derives from Volga".

Bulgar are mentioned as such in texts from 482, and arrived at the Volga only once the Khazars displaced them from Great Bulgaria in 668. That's nearly two centuries.

I just spent some time searching for the "Volga" -> "Bulgar" theory in English, French, Russian, Bulgarian, and Chuvash, and have not been able to find one single reference to a historical document. Even Wikipedia mentions the theory without a citation. I do not think I'll be discussing this anymore, because claims like this are simply аsspulls.

[The Cunning Fox (raZoleg)]

I don’t read a wiki and I’m not pushing an agenda. But, for the sake of argument, here is a quick reply with a quote from said wiki:

Альтернативная гипотеза происхождения названия страны связывает его с особенностями произношения названия реки Волга, у берегов которой обитали эти племена, и постепенно трансформировавшегося: Volga → Volgarii → Volgaria → Bolgaria → Bulgaria

I am not aware of Bulgharians being some sort of an “Eastern Chapter” of the great empire, nor am I sure than you aren’t confusing it with the Khazarian Kahanate (those guys did use “bei” vernacular).

Anyway, I’d like to see those sources that point to that, as well as the ones that you say can with full confidence explain the emergence of the word “Bulgaria”. It is evident that the core of ethnic Bulgarians came from the Volgan city, just like it is evident that the Huns came from Northern China and caused mass migration. By the way, by the time Huns invaded Europe, the byzantians weren’t really populating Bulgarian Lands - those were almost entirely given to goths that were migrating from the Crimean peninsula.

[Danny]

Swadians = France-German influences
Rhodok = Swiss-Italian
Sarranids = Turks or furter into the Middle East.
Khergit = Huns-Mongols
Vaegirs = Eastern Europe-Russia
Nords = Scandinavian-Vikings

That said, Calradia is separate from from actual historical Earth.
So there are some differences.