Humankind - English discussion thread

[notNamed]

I would love to have English replaced on base game for something like Magyars.

Don't you mean Hungarians?
Magyars would be the relatively short-lived nomadic group which ended up establishing the Hungarian kingdom, but they had relatively small timespan of interaction (basically just raids into Francia and Byzancium) with the rest of the cultures involved.
On the other hand, if you go with Hungarians (i.e. the kingdom starting roughly 1000CE), you get a full Christian kingdom standing with one leg in the Western and the other in Eastern Europe. That would also give you a culture in medieval era which fought Mongolians (we have none as it stands), fought both against and with Jerusalem crusaders, was in full contact with the Byzantines for their entire existence, established the hussar tradition and got mostly conquered by Ottomans later (interaction with the Polish-Lithuanians and Ottomans who are likely candidates in the next era).

Anyway, either them or the Bulgarians (to give some representation to a real Eastern European power other than Byzantines) would have been a much better choice from both a cultural and uniquness perspective. But longbows, mate. 1000 times lacquered and cut out from trees watered with French tears.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Don't you mean Hungarians?
Magyars would be the relatively short-lived nomadic group which ended up establishing the Hungarian kingdom, but they had relatively small timespan of interaction (basically just raids into Francia and Byzancium) with the rest of the cultures involved.
On the other hand, if you go with Hungarians (i.e. the kingdom starting roughly 1000CE), you get a full Christian kingdom standing with one leg in the Western and the other in Eastern Europe. That would also give you a culture in medieval era which fought Mongolians (we have none as it stands), fought both against and with Jerusalem crusaders, was in full contact with the Byzantines for their entire existence, established the hussar tradition and got mostly conquered by Ottomans later (interaction with the Polish-Lithuanians and Ottomans who are likely candidates in the next era).

Anyway, either them or the Bulgarians (to give some representation to a real Eastern European power other than Byzantines) would have been a much better choice from both a cultural and uniquness perspective. But longbows, mate. 1000 times lacquered and cut out from trees watered with French tears.

Well since hungarians call themselves Magyarok and their country Magyarország the name Magyars could be valid for both stages of their history.
Also name the medieval ones "Magyars" open the possibility to use the name "Hungarians" for the culture of later Eras (like Persians+Iranians).

 

[notNamed]

They didn't call themselves Magyars during the kingdom, though. That was done retroactively (18th century or so?) as a nationalistic callback to the origins of the country.
Medieval Hungarians called themselves Ugorok which in turn made for Ungari/Hungari in Latin/Romance correspondence, Ungarn for the German inhabitants (primarily Saxon settlers after the Mongolian invasion) and Ugri/Uhri for the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of the kingdom. It's also where the modern Ugric language family (that modern Hungarian belongs to) gets its name from.

In effect, Hungarian is the correct term for the medieval kingdom. While if you want to include the earlier nomads or the modern state (which happens to retain the archaic name in English), that's where the term Magyar(s) could come in handy.

 

[BuchiTaton]

They didn't call themselves Magyars during the kingdom, though. That was done retroactively (18th century or so?) as a nationalistic callback to the origins of the country.
Medieval Hungarians called themselves Ugorok which in turn made for Ungari/Hungari in Latin/Romance correspondence, Ungarn for the German inhabitants (primarily Saxon settlers after the Mongolian invasion) and Ugri/Uhri for the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of the kingdom. It's also where the modern Ugric language family (that modern Hungarian belongs to) gets its name from.

OK, but the game design dont let space for both medieval Magyars and Hungarians, you should go for just one name on Medieval time, while a second name could be saved for later Eras.
Like Persians on Classical and a likely Contemporary Iranians, devs probably would use the more extended and well know names. If there is a culture representing the modern Hungarian culture, that culture would get the name Hungarians almost for sure, because is how is know on english, while Magyars is used on english for the original medieval Magyars.
So you have and "old" name Magyars/Persians and a "modern" widely used name Hungarians/Iranians.

If the game gonna have just one representation for Hungary, then Hungarians could be used for medieval one. But if there are two, dont use Magyars for medieval would be a waste (no to forget the medieval Franks that technically include the proper medieval Frenchs).

 

[danza4x]

Am I the only one who finds the description of longbowmen a little irritating?

"Cheap and plentiful"

These terms are both highly historically inaccurate (the opposite is much closer to the truth) and diminish the general flavourful awesomeness of this EU unnecessarily.

What gave English longbowmen their fearsome might during the Hundred Years' War was the huge draw weight of the bow. This gave the arrows an incredible amount of power that allowed them to pierce the armour of French knights from a long distance, but it also came with a pretty huge trade-off that they were actually very, very difficult to use. It required immense back strength for a longbowman to pull one of these bows and as a result, longbowmen had to train from childhood (it was even made law, I believe, for Englishmen to have to train with a longbow throughout their lives). This contrasted them with crossbows, favoured by the rest of Western Europe during this period, which actually were cheap and plentiful because they required hardly any training to use, but had the downside of much slower reload times.

So longbowmen definitely weren't cheap, but what about "plentiful"? Well, Crecy and Agincourt are two very good examples of battles in which longbowmen absolutely annihilated French armies despite being vastly outnumbered. Their effectiveness clearly wasn't in numbers, it was in the elite power of the individual soldiers.

I'd much rather see longbowmen represented by their historical truth as highly trained, highly effective, badass warriors, rather than just a mass of peasants handed a stick! That would be MUCH cooler! Who else agrees?

 

[notNamed]

What gave English longbowmen their fearsome might during the Hundred Years' War was the huge draw weight of the bow.

They were the same draw-weight as any warbow since their invention sometimes in the neolithic and up into the modern era. Warbows are warbows. There are no warbows, not in the Americas, not in Europe, nor in Asia, which do not have huge draw weights.

So longbowmen definitely weren't cheap, but what about "plentiful"? Well, Crecy and Agincourt are two very good examples of battles in which longbowmen absolutely annihilated French armies despite being vastly outnumbered. Their effectiveness clearly wasn't in numbers, it was in the elite power of the individual soldiers.

They were literally peasant levies who came about from the kingdom's decree that all peasants were obliged to train with the bow. This meant that whenever an English noble levied his subjects to fulfill his martial obligations to the crown, he brought in more peasants who could be trusted with warbows (while others got pikes or spears) than their French counterpart. There is literally no cheaper and more plentiful resource than peasant levies in a European medieval realm. Comparing the cost of a bow that was built and used even by European stone age hunter-gatherers to the specialised craftsmen and resources needed to make a medieval European crossbow is also a no-go.
Crossbowmen were trained soldiers and mercenaries in comparison, with their own armor, battle experience and such to show for the coin you paid them.

 

[danza4x]

They were the same draw-weight as any warbow since their invention sometimes in the neolithic and up into the modern era. Warbows are warbows. There are no warbows, not in the Americas, not in Europe, nor in Asia, which do not have huge draw weights.

Are you serious? Draw weights of historical war bows vary hugely. Longbows recovered from the Mary-Rose, some of the only surviving English longbows from anywhere near the HYW era, had draw weights of 150-160lbs (there are few humans alive today who can accurately and consistently pull this weight), whereas other historical warbows could be as low as 40lbs-60lbs. Skeletons have been found of medieval English longbowmen that are quite literally deformed due to their massive upper back muscles.

If any of what you were saying was true, there would be no point even bothering with longbowmen as the English EU as they would be no different from other peasant levy archers. Luckily, it isn't.

 

[notNamed]

If any of what you were saying was true, there would be no point even bothering with longbowmen as the English EU as they would be no different from other peasant levy archers.

Emblematic unit is emblematic, as in "what comes to mind" when you hear about this or that culture. People who fight naked aren't somehow magically better in fights than those who actually wear armor. But having a group of such guys around is one of those things that stuck with the image of a Celtic warrior so they are the Celts' EU and it's up to the game to come up with a niche to make them useful during in-game battles.
English longbowmen weren't specially trained or anything of the sort (there were even complaints about their lack of disciple, firing off all the arrows given to no effect and going back to camp, so they weren't specially loyal or enthusiastic, either). However, they represent a successful policy implementation which gave the English the advantage they needed as the poorer and smaller kingdom in the war to hold their own and even deal some serious blows to the much more powerful, wealthy and populous French crown before the French eventually won the war and took over all English possessions on the European mainland for good.
That is what's worth representing, is fairly unique (French crown also had the same archery at home policy, it just never bore any fruit so they abandoned it) and is one of the things that English are extremely well known for.

 

[danza4x]

My argument is that the word "cheap" is far from an accurate reflection of what English longbowmen really were. It's a mischaracterisation that diminishes that emblematic flavour unnecessarily.

Any amount of time that a peasant spends firing arrows at a target is time that this peasant is not tilling fields, and there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the individuals making up the ranks of English longbowmen on the battlefield would have had to spend quite a significant amount of time engaged in this practice to reach the extremely heavy draw weights required - far more than that of typical levy archers throughout history. That has a cost associated with it.

It has even been argued that the use of mass longbows was only ever ditched in favour of muskets because of the prohibitive cost involved in training longbowmen. Had this not been an issue, longbows - with their vastly superior firing rate and accuracy - would have continued to be favoured long into the early modern period.

"Cheap" is a more accurate word to describe users of low-skill weapons like crossbows or muskets. The cost of the physical weapon is negligible compared to this training.

https://www.straightdope.com/column...diers-use-bows-and-arrows-instead-of-muskets/

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My argument is that the word "cheap" is far from an accurate reflection of what English longbowmen really were. It's a mischaracterisation that diminishes that emblematic flavour unnecessarily.

Any amount of time that a peasant spends firing arrows at a target is time that this peasant is not tilling fields, and there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the individuals making up the ranks of English longbowmen on the battlefield would have had to spend quite a significant amount of time engaged in this practice to reach the extremely heavy draw weights required - far more than that of typical levy archers throughout history. That has a cost associated with it.

It has even been argued that the use of mass longbows was only ever ditched in favour of muskets because of the prohibitive cost involved in training longbowmen. Had this not been an issue, longbows - with their vastly superior firing rate and accuracy - would have continued to be favoured long into the early modern period.

"Cheap" is a more accurate word to describe users of low-skill weapons like crossbows or muskets. The cost of the physical weapon is negligible compared to this training.

https://www.straightdope.com/column...diers-use-bows-and-arrows-instead-of-muskets/

It is more accurate to speak of a English 'Longbow System" than an English longbow. The longbow itself, as a weapon, is neither unique nor a battle winner. Xenophon describes tribesmen in the Zagros Mountains (on the modern border between Iran and Iraq) using bows "as tall as a man" shooting heavy arrows that could go right through a man's body armor - sound familiar? That was over 1500 years before Crecy or Poitiers, and while Xenophon recounts the longbow archery as being nasty, it didn't stop the Greek mercenaries - you charge any archers, and they run away or die and foot bows cannot be fired accurately while you are running for your life, unlike horse archery, which if anything is even more deadly while they are retreating (the 'Parthian Shot').

What made the English longbow militarily significant was that the 'yeomen' were Required to train/practice with it every week under the eye of the local sheriff, and when they were mustered, the sheriff frequently went with them so that there was a chain of command between the nobles and the bowmen. Longbow fire could be massed and directed - not always with perfection, but a lot better than virtually any other ranged fire in medieval Europe.

On the other hand, the expense of the longbow, as correctly noted earlier, was in the requirement for a certain number of hours every week to be spent practicing with it. It got to the point where the English Monarchy prohibited by Law virtually every other pastime for the 'peasants' except working the fields and practicing the longbow. Any other 'recreation' was Illegal. However, there are other factors. A really good longbow was made from a yew tree that had been grown and tended specifically to provide bow wood: that was not cheap in either time, labor, or land that could have been planted in 'regular' crops. In addition, the matchlock musket or earlier 'hackbus' firearm was actually pretty cheap to manufacture. An intriguing document from Spain dated around 1472 CE lists the cost of a helmet, breastplate and pike at 3.25 ducats, while the cost of a matchlock arquebus was 1 ducat.
And NO, I am not arguing that a Musketman unit should be 1/3 the cost of a Pikeman! - theere are numerous other factors in the 'cost' of a unit.
Finally, the lethality of the longbow is frequently lauded versus the smoothbore musket. IF measured by the number of arrows versus bullets that could be fired in a minute, this looks compelling. BUT if measured by the number of arrows versus bullets that can be fired in an hour, or the course of a battle, the rate of fire is much more even. No matter how well developed and trained, how long do you think any human can aim and pull a 150-pound draw bow before his arms are trembling with exhaustion? Using chemical propellant (gunpowder) the musket ball is coming at you with the same velocity and lethality at the end of the day as it was at the beginning, which is not true of the arrow fired by a tired bowman.

So the longbow was replaced by the arquebus or musket not only because the musket was cheaper to acquire and much cheaper to train and use (BUT only initially: when regular drill was introduced for units of muskets and firelocks in the 17th century, armies quickly became long-term 'regulars' that did nothing but practice Unit Drill and did nothing else, and so were even more expensive to maintain than the part-time longbowmen ever were) but also because the musket effect was regular and predictable - and deadly. There are records (from the Crusades and after) of knights fighting on with a dozen arrows sticking out of their shields and horses' barding. There is no record of anybody fighting on with a dozen, or even a half-dozen, musket holes in him.

 

[danza4x]

Great post Boris. It's not a question of English longbowmen being "better" than other archers throughout history - plenty of other cultures have wielded archery with great effect, sometimes in a similar way, sometimes in other ways - but as you've laid out, there's an interesting story behind them and IMO it's sad to see that get overshadowed by the words "cheap and plentiful". It makes them sound like nothing more than a rabble of peasant cannon-fodder plucked straight from the fields.

 

[Krajzen]

At the current point, I am not overexcited over this English design.
- Why not Anglo Saxon design? So much more character, and it could happen only in this age, while "England" could be put anywhere. Now we have English and obligatory British later, which is less sexy solution as it kind of collides with possible Scottish culture.
- If not Anglo Saxon design, then why is this whatever image medieval England? Can we put a pressure on devs to change it, like we got faces of some civ6 leaders changed? Why not some imagery of King Arthur, longbowmen, iconic castles, Richard Lionheart, Canterbury, hey even Robin Hood
- I have changed my mind and I am not sure now regarding England and Agrarian affinity. Yes, there are some rational reasons, but something feels off to me. Like, I'd rather give this affinity in this era to Slavs, Inca, Khmer, Korea, Indian civ etc.

Oh well, not every culture must be amazing and an overall quality is great. Besides everybody knows complainers are silly. Oh btw let me criticize Frankish image and lack of Aesthete in this era, as well as -

 

[FinalDoomsday]

Medieval or Early Modern Scotland could still happen in a dlc with Great Britain in Industrial so they don't clash.

 

[Jkchart]

So we get a Medieval "England" with an Emblematic Unit derived from the Welsh and an Emblematic Quarter imposed on them by the Norman Conquerors. Doesn't exactly scream 'There'll Always Be An England' to me, but then my family were German miscreants that escaped to the Americas one jump ahead of the local lawmen in Bavaria and Austria . . .

On the other hand, this is the one certain Non-Naval England: Anglo-Saxon Alfred built up an efficient little fleet, but Norman England was strictly Terra Firma inclined, and the More Firmer the less Terror for them - Willie and his invaders couldn't wait to get out of their ships and on their horses. It wasn't until they had something to sell (wool) and so built up seaborne trade that the English developed the mass of experienced sailors and sea captains that enabled the Renaissance Navy and the start of their technological lead in warships (efficient naval gun carriages, gun ports, the race-built galleon hull, the carronade, iron-reinforced large warship hulls, etc., etc.)

If you want a 'first date' for English Naval Bonus it would be the launch of the first of the 'Great Ships', the Grace Dieu, a 1600 ton carrack, in 1418 CE, right at the very end of the Medieval Era, one of the first cannon-carrying warships (although most of its fighting power was in two huge raised 'castles' fore and aft and a mass of longbowmen firing from them)

Here's the thing - since Humankind IS about the melding together of cultures, that means that the English culture is designed pretty appropriately. English is a bunch of other cultures mashed up on a tiny island - Saxons, Celts, and Normans, so to me this design wholly hits all three cultures that fused in the late classical/early medieval era that turned into what we now know as English.
- The agrarian trait is a good representation of Saxon influence since so much of Anglo-Saxon lifestyle revolved around the farms. Of course, you can say that about basically any culture since you need farms for food, but if I recall correctly, Anglo-Saxon lifestyle was molded by their access to farms/pastures. And then we have the Norman influence on the landowning elite and agricultural system. To me I think it hits both of these.
- Yes the Longbow came from Wales, but when you think of Longbows, you still think English troops due to the notoriety associated with English longbows. Whether or not it's deserved is another matter, but "England" is the first thing that will come to mind for the normal person's recognition. Additionally, Longbow archery was prevalent taught and trained (at least to an extent), and it also hits at home with the "melding of cultures" aspect HK is going for (a germanic people taking a Celtic weapon and making it a mainstay of their armies).
- Similarly, the "Stronghold" shows the enormous influence that the Norman Conquest had on England. After all, what did William do when he got there and needed to keep a hold on it? He built a ton of castles, of which the English countryside was littered! Plus I love imagining that "Stronghold" is a reference to an old videogame series I particularly enjoyed

I know you probably know this stuff even better than I do, Boris, I just saw this and felt like the English design needs some credit since (to me at least) it is a really good representation of what went into and became medieval England. I'm just glad we don't have England=Navy

(Also I'm writing this very late and tired, so sorry if any of this is jumbled)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Here's the thing - since Humankind IS about the melding together of cultures, that means that the English culture is designed pretty appropriately. English is a bunch of other cultures mashed up on a tiny island - Saxons, Celts, and Normans, so to me this design wholly hits all three cultures that fused in the late classical/early medieval era that turned into what we now know as English.
- The agrarian trait is a good representation of Saxon influence since so much of Anglo-Saxon lifestyle revolved around the farms. Of course, you can say that about basically any culture since you need farms for food, but if I recall correctly, Anglo-Saxon lifestyle was molded by their access to farms/pastures. And then we have the Norman influence on the landowning elite and agricultural system. To me I think it hits both of these.
- Yes the Longbow came from Wales, but when you think of Longbows, you still think English troops due to the notoriety associated with English longbows. Whether or not it's deserved is another matter, but "England" is the first thing that will come to mind for the normal person's recognition. Additionally, Longbow archery was prevalent taught and trained (at least to an extent), and it also hits at home with the "melding of cultures" aspect HK is going for (a germanic people taking a Celtic weapon and making it a mainstay of their armies).
- Similarly, the "Stronghold" shows the enormous influence that the Norman Conquest had on England. After all, what did William do when he got there and needed to keep a hold on it? He built a ton of castles, of which the English countryside was littered! Plus I love imagining that "Stronghold" is a reference to an old videogame series I particularly enjoyed

I know you probably know this stuff even better than I do, Boris, I just saw this and felt like the English design needs some credit since (to me at least) it is a really good representation of what went into and became medieval England. I'm just glad we don't have England=Navy

(Also I'm writing this very late and tired, so sorry if any of this is jumbled)

Good points, but I think they point less to the multi-cultural or more precisely multiply-influenced culture of Medieval England than they do to the fact that the period was too diverse to be covered by a single Era in the game - a point that has been argued elsewhere at length.

Without straining too hard we could have Anglo-Saxon England, Norman England and Plantagenet England with a different Emblematic Unit and Quarter for each (Huscarles, Norman Knights, Longbowmen and Minsters, Strongholds and Monasteries)

But until we get AT LEAST two different Factions each from Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Americas for the same Era, that would be 'way too much concentration of attention on one little island . . .

 

[Zaarin]

English is a bunch of other cultures mashed up on a tiny island - Saxons, Celts, and Normans

You forgot the Danes, whose influence on our language was so strong we actually borrowed a couple pronouns from them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You forgot the Danes, whose influence on our language was so strong we actually borrowed a couple pronouns from them.

- Because English desperately needed a pronoun referring to "one who comes to pillage and stays to farm".

Now I believe it's only used to refer to Elected Officials

 

[Zaarin]

- Because English desperately needed a pronoun referring to "one who comes to pillage and stays to farm".

One can have fun with oddly specific pronouns in conlangs, but in the case of Late Old English/Middle English all of the third person pronouns had merged--so the English borrowed they from the Danes. Borrowing pronouns is exceedingly rare so it shows just how intimately entwined daily life was in Wessex and the Danelaw, even when they were politically at odds. (Which makes me so happy to see the osmosis feature in Humankind. )

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

One can have fun with oddly specific pronouns in conlangs, but in the case of Late Old English/Middle English all of the third person pronouns had merged--so the English borrowed they from the Danes. Borrowing pronouns is exceedingly rare so it shows just how intimately entwined daily life was in Wessex and the Danelaw, even when they were politically at odds. (Which makes me so happy to see the osmosis feature in Humankind. )

On a more serious note than my last post, recent DNA studies have shown that the Britons, Saxons and Danes shared the land to a considerable extent: the same DNA remains in place in parts of England from neolithic to modern times, regardless of the Political 'control' over the area. The most recent and powerful immigrants tended to grab the best land, but they didn't actually push the older inhabitants very far, which made for a great deal of cultural and physical intermingling.

 

[Zaarin]

On a more serious note than my last post, recent DNA studies have shown that the Britons, Saxons and Danes shared the land to a considerable extent: the same DNA remains in place in parts of England from neolithic to modern times, regardless of the Political 'control' over the area. The most recent and powerful immigrants tended to grab the best land, but they didn't actually push the older inhabitants very far, which made for a great deal of cultural and physical intermingling.

When 10,000 year old Cheddar Man was discovered, DNA analysis found several direct descendants within 10 miles of where he was found.