Re-launch of for Honour and Glory and presentation

[Lion.Kanzen]

 There I post example where and how you can be create this.

you can create this in the same sub- forum 

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/forum/297-1000-ad/

how must be

 

[Tomcelmare]

The problem is, niektb told me he didn't want another civilization proposal in the sub-forum...so I don't know...Maybe if someone is interested to actually make this civ, then we could start a sub-topic...

Edited February 13, 2017 by Tomcelmare

[niektb]

Then write something in the topic title so that it's clear that it is a mere suggestion to add the civ (rather than an already accepted civ) (maybe organize the content on the fly too?)

I agree with Lion that this isn't the best suitable place to post these reference

[Tomcelmare]

Well I agree with you, but it was actually the very thing I did before you told me to post here...I specified "civilization proposal: Sinhalese" in my first topic, but maybe it wasn't clear enough. So would you like the title  "possible civilization for millenium mod" better?

Another thing that bothers me: If I think about it, I have introduced more references in my posts for a period between 300 BC to 500 AD, than for a period between 500 AD to 1000 AD... so is it better in Millenium, or in Rise of the East? I wonder...

[Lion.Kanzen]

17 minutes ago, Tomcelmare said:

Well I agree with you, but it was actually the very thing I did before you told me to post here...I specified "civilization proposal: Sinhalese" in my first topic, but maybe it wasn't clear enough. So would you like the title  "possible civilization for millenium mod" better?

Another thing that bothers me: If I think about it, I have introduced more references in my posts for a period between 300 BC to 500 AD, than for a period between 500 AD to 1000 AD... so is it better in Millenium, or in Rise of the East? I wonder...

If you see this place your idea can be easy to lost in big enormous topic. In the future how many pages this topic will be have?

if somelese agree with the civ,where they can find this information,you are placing?

 

its like suggestion topic in main forum,some ideas will be lost.

 

even I open ideas that I have , I open a post with information, if I'm not sure I try posted in a place, for example the Aztec post or the mesoamerican post, I try to give properly their own place. Your ideas are becoming into topic.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

https://r12a.github.io/maps-europe/svg/CE_600.svg

Edited May 2, 2018 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

With we finish with Classic Medieval facciones (Europe, Middle East , Indians and Far Asians)

We can add more American cultures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture

[Lion.Kanzen]

I did not know that there was an Byzantine Emperor of Khazar origin.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_IV_the_Khazar

The Khazars would be the Avar faction?

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Millennium A D : Saeculum Obscurum (Dark Ages)

(476-1096)

The concept of a "Dark Age" originated in the 1330s with the Italian scholar Petrarch, who regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the "light" of classical antiquity.[1][2] The term employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the era's "darkness" (ignorance and error) with earlier and later periods of "light" (knowledge and understanding).[1] The phrase "Dark Age" itself derives from the Latin saeculum obscurum, originally applied by Caesar Baronius in 1602 when he referred to a tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries.[3][4] The concept thus came to characterize the entire Middle Ages as a time of intellectual darkness in Europe between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance that became especially popular during the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment.[1] Others, however, have used the term to denote the relative ignorance of historians regarding at least the early part of the Middle Ages, from a scarcity of records.

Funny lecture bonus.(the Pornocracy)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum

 

[Ramsés]

On 21/5/2014 at 10:10, Radagast. said:

También me pregunto si el arte/estilo de construcción et al. realmente cambió mucho de una dinastía a otra. ¿No sería mejor abstraer un poco las civilizaciones e introducirlas como una etiqueta para cada tipo de arte? Esto suena mucho más flexible para mí.

 

¿No deberíamos dejarlos ser parte de los francos y otros cruzados? Realmente no diferían... Creo que nunca deberíamos crear arte redundante y los francos eran los francos sin importar si estaban en Jerusalén o en Francia.

Pues no sus ejercitos no eran igual y sus construcciones tenían influencia del medio oriente , además de la forma de administración era distinta ,además que los frances recluten cruzados en europa es algo totalmente fuera de la historia, la prden teutonica también era diferente y su relación con el HRE fue escasa y no muy significativa, esta se gestionaba sus propios recursos y su ejrcito se valia de las tropas locales que reclutaban en los territorios conquistados pero la mano de obra eran colonos alemanes , 

[Radagast.]

Valid points. In my vision it is all a more fluid process. I understand that in 0AD it is discrete i.e. one tries to find most important distinct descendants of a culture and if it's worth it then creates models for it.

I am not finished with my concept. Yet I made some progress. What is interesting is that history may happen totally differently in 0BC, so it's not that historical anymore. It's historical in the beginning when you choose a time to start in. Then it's well possible you change history (and cultures, nations, borders, technologies that evolve ouf of it)