Research Q&A

@ Madeira: Some information to narrow down your search:

(from "The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages")

Together with two other tribes, the Jutes and the Angles, the Saxons primarily invaded and settled in the regions of Britain still known today as Essex (East Saxons), Sussex (South Saxons), Wessex (West Saxons), and Kent (Jutes and Frisians). I'm assuming that the terms East, West, and South for saxons does not refer to their origins but rather where they settled in England. Several Saxon tribes that went further north established East Anglia and Mercia (and Northumbria, I believe). Some say these groups were invited by an ambitious celtic king to attack a rival but, either way, the decline of roman influence in the region allowed a steady flow of Angles and Saxons to dominate England. The native Britains (celts) were either enslaved or driven west to wales or north to scotland (picts?).

The head of the most dominant anglo-saxon kingdom was referred to as the bretwalda (british ruler). The first was King Ethelbert of Kent. Later, the rulers of Northumbria, centered around York, were most dominant. In the 700s, the most dominant group were in Mercia, lead by King Offa. He changed the ruler's title to rex Anglorum. Still later (~800) was Essex under King Egbert.

It wasn't until after Egbert died that the Viking invasions really picked up (839ish). After conquoring Northumbria and East Anglia, and threatening Wessex and Mercia, the regions north of a line between London and Cambridge in the east, Bridgenorth and Lichfield in the center, and Cardigan Bay and the Irish Sea in the west, all became known as Danelaw. The anglo-saxon king, Alfred the Great, and his successors, reconquored some (all?) of the area. The Danes again ruled under Cnut the Great and two of his sons from 1016-1042, until the Anglo-Saxons regained dominance under Edward the Confessor. After this, it's all about the Norman invasions.

If you're looking for stock names of territories for Anglo-Saxons, they organized England into burroughs (administered by reeves) and shires (administered by shire-reeves, or sheriffs). This same system of government persisted into the late medieval and modern periods. The system was preserved even by the Normans and, though I don't know for certain, I would say that the vast majority of Anglo-Saxon colonies/settlements still go by the same name in modern England... unless of course it sounds french or latin.
 
LouLong, thanks for your help :D

Could I see the picture
 
Here it is :
 

Attachments

  • PhrygianAxe.jpg
    PhrygianAxe.jpg
    129.2 KB · Views: 233
LouLong, thanks very much. :)

Now to find a unit that fits ;)
 
A unit that fits.... KINBOAT, where are you ? :p

BTW important is to have a double-axe ! And the Phrygian hat of course.
I was not there at the time (lol) but I gathered it was a very typical weapon for Phrygians, which did not prevent them from having other kinds of soldiers, including ones influenced by Greeks.
 
I decided to post a unit request, wish me luck ;)
 
I considered him. He really is very different looking, though (and I think he throws his axe). I might end up using him temporarily, though.
 
LouLong, I don't suppose you could help me out with Elamite or Aramaean traits, leaderhead, or uu?
 
I am currently lacking a detailed historical request, but I would like to keep an eye on this thread... I doubt I could think of a situation where it wouldnt be incredibly useful ;p

@Mistfit: Thanks for the heads-up on this thread! I had no IDEA!

PS: I remembered the darn t this time ;p
 
Two quick questions:

Do you know where I could find a list of ship types in use from 1512-1701 with picture (or seperate pictures, or just pictures im not picky ;p)

Is there a better (more representative) civilization for Southern India (same period as above) than Hyderabad? I am looking for a representative Southern Indian civilization for inclusion into my scenario.

Thanks a tooooon!

PS: I already have the northern indian civ of the Mughal Empire
 
I'm navally ********, so I'll just pass this along. Probably info you already know, and definitely specific to hyderabad. But it's interesting to note that this was also a part of the Mughal dynasty (at least after 1687) during the time period you're interested in.


from http://www.hydonline.com/cityscape/history/nizams.htm

[note that references to the (Asif Jah) Nizam dynasty refers to the dynasty after 1724.]

After the illustrious era of the Qutub Shahis, the city of Hyderabad came under the rule of the mighty Mughal Aurangazeb. Mir Qamaruddin, the son of an able officer of Aurangazeb was a favorite of the emperor. He served as a minister under the Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah and was conferred with the title of Asif Jah. Consequently he rose to the post of the Viceroy of Deccan while still very young. In due course, he wielded such undisputed power that the enraged Aurangazeb ordered his assassination. The task was entrusted to Mobariz Khan, the local governor of Hyderabad. But this was not to happen. The attempt backfired and Mobariz Khan was killed in A.D. 1724."

from http://www.hyderabad.co.uk/introduction.htm

"Hyderabad was founded on the River Musi five miles east of Golconda, in 1591-92 by Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah. In the 16th century the city grew spontaneously to accommodate the surplus population of Golconda, which was the capital of the Qutb Shahi rulers. Many buildings sprang up along the River Musi. Gradually the city grew.

The Qutb Shahi dynasty founded the Kingdom of Golconda, one of the five kingdoms that emerged after the break up of the Bahamani Kingdom. The Qutb Shahis ruled the Deccan for almost 171 years. All the seven rulers were patrons of learning and were great builders. They contributed to the growth and development of Indo-Persian and Indo-Islamic literature and culture in Hyderabad. During the Qutb Shahi reign Golconda became one of the leading markets in the world of diamonds, pearls, steel for arms, and also printed fabric.

The glory of the Golconda kingdom ended in 1687, after a valiant struggle. Aurangzeb, the last great Mughal ruler, captured Golconda after a siege that lasted eight months. Abul Hasan Tana Shah, the last king of Golconda, was imprisoned at Daulatabad, where he died after twelve years in captivity.

With the conquest of the Deccan and the South, Aurangzeb succeeded in expanding the Mughal Empire to cover the entire sub-continent. However, after his death in 1707, the Empire rapidly declined."

from http://www.aponline.gov.in/Quick links/HIST-CULT/architecture_qut.html

"The Qutb Shahis ruled from 1518 to 1687. This approximately coincided with the reign of the great Mughals (1526-1707) that built Humayun’s Tomb (1565), Fatehpur Sikri (1571-1580) and finally the Taj Mahal (1631). During the same period the Bijapur Sultans built Gol Gumbad (1656) and the Barid Shahis built several exquisite tombs (1543-1591) at Bidar. The architectural ancestors of the Qutb Shahis were naturally the Bahmanis. Evolution of Deccani architecture amalgamated the early Tughlaq influence, the intermediate appearance of Persian forms and motifs and the lasting mark of meticulous workmanship of local craftsmen. ""

Sorry if this is redundant. :undecide:
 
Well, that does confrim my suspicions... Vijayanagara it is!

Thanks for slaughtering Q2! Anyone for #1? ;p
 
Aeon221 said:
Do you know where I could find a list of ship types in use from 1512-1701 with picture (or seperate pictures, or just pictures im not picky ;p)

ALthough it's actually pictureless, for ships up to the 16th century I really like:

http://cma.soton.ac.uk/HistShip/shlecmen.htm

I also like "THE DEVELOPMENT OF
SQUARE - RIGGED SHIP
FROM THE CARRACK TO THE FULL - RIGGER":

http://www.greatgridlock.net/Sqrigg/squrig2.html

-- And, yes, it has pictures (line drawings).

-Oz
 
Some better ancient and fantasy barbarians. Slightly Pictish or Conan-esque.

Also flavor Ancient units: Warriors/Archer/Chariot/Spearman/Swordsman/Horseman.
 
GoodGame said:
Some better ancient and fantasy barbarians. Slightly Pictish or Conan-esque.

Also flavor Ancient units: Warriors/Archer/Chariot/Spearman/Swordsman/Horseman.

... Is this a request for info of some sort? :confused:

-Oz
 
i have some questions for you Sir Oz (and Mistfit, too)...

state or de-facto leaders, march 1965:

some are no-brainers but others are a little tougher...

South Vietnam
North Vietnam - Ho
China - Mao
Kingdom of Laos
Kingdom of Cambodia
Kingdom of Thailand
Khmer Rouge
Pathet Lao

thanks in advance fellas ;)
 
South Vietnam - President Thieu
North Vietnam - Ho
China - Mao
Kingdom of Laos - Prince Souvanna Phouma
Kingdom of Cambodia - Prince Sihanouk
Kingdom of Thailand - King Bhumibol Adulyadej
Khmer Rouge - Pol Pot
Pathet Lao - ???

-Oz
 
Back
Top Bottom