UnReal World forums
UnRelated discussion => Off-topic => Topic started by: user1805 on August 08, 2020, 09:27:39 PM
-
Several times I thought, let me look that up, but I coudnt find any reference in the internet. Any trial with the word leads me to some game referring sites only. Trying from direction of sites about Finnish history there also was no hint of invaders from the east at later iron age.
Did someone find any reference here?
-
The folk etymology I've taken up for the name breaks it down into нерпа + -ец = people of the ringed seal (genus Pusa), where the Russian word нерпа is cognate with Finnish norppa (species Pusa hispida). It's a bit funny, seeing that Seal-Tribe territory is on the opposite end of the map!
But I suppose there's no direct real world analogue for the njerpezit.
-
Etymological interesting reference, thanks :)
What i found isnt much and does not fit but can mention it:
- Settlement from the baltic region, early indogermanic, the absorbed. (3000 BC, far too early)
- Turcic/Mogolic wars. Influence to the region not before 1250. (too late)
- Moskovit expansion to the region around 1500. (even later)
- Only thing is left that at this time, is that Samojedic tribes were there at this time (~900), which culture is after Moskovit expansion left more to the north east. But those are like Finnish cousins and cant call them a different culture with a good conscienceness. They were (are) living from reindeer. Those were there, but dont fit to the hypothesis of Njerpez as the game describes it.
-
If I've understood it correctly, the Njerpezit aren't based on any real world peoples, but rather there to fill the need for some bad guys in the game, and then vaguely associated with the east (they'd have to come from some direction, and with water in the south, the traders from the west, you don't have many directions left). The Njerps are, after all, crazed nutjobs, rather than a normal culture.
-
This might be a bit of a disappointment, but here are a few words from the very person who crafted the word "Njerpez" and drafted their place and role in the UnReal World;
1. As far as I know, the name is just a pseudo-word, chosen for the way it sounds to a Finnish-speaking person. (Of course there probably always are sub-conscious influences I'm not aware of myself.) Without meaning anything specific it just sounds "foreign". It should be noted that the same principle applies to all the other cultural names in UnReal World - most of them are pseudo words chosen to sound like a words which could've existed in ancient Finnish language.
2. Although UnReal World is based on Iron Age Finland (roughly 800 AD - 1200 AD), we deliberately chose to make a phantasy world resembling historical Finland. That way we have some artistic freedom, and not all the details need to be 100% accurate. Just like the world map is not real Finland, so the tribes and cultures are loose adaptations. Especially the Njerpez. They are somewhat based on Russian cultures.
Historically speaking, there is the 1323 AD treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_N%C3%B6teborg) defining a border between Swedish Kingdom and Novgorod Republic. That border runs through the area which was home to Finnic tribes. So, a lot simplified, around the turn of 1200 - 1300 AD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish%E2%80%93Novgorodian_Wars) the land mass now known as Finland saw the Swedish Kingdom expanding from the West, and Novgorod expanding from the South-East.
One fictional inspiration for the world of UnReal World has been an alternative history; how would late 1200 AD Finland have looked like, if the Swedish invasion didn't take place? In that case, probably, there still would've been some sort of Novgorod expansion. And not just Novgorod expansion, but probably also Finnic tribes launching (counter)raids into Novgorod territory. Or, actually this Finnic - Novgorod warfare probably is also historically accurate, but only fragmentary documents remain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish%E2%80%93Novgorodian_wars).
EDIT:
The Njerps are, after all, crazed nutjobs, rather than a normal culture.
I must say that personally I'm a little bit sad about that. I mean, I feel that it would be great if we had all the cultures of UnReal World more detailed and behaving in more realistic and complex way, with multiple layers in their behavioural patterns and repertoire. But that is a huge task which would require a lot of AI programming, and the main focus has been developing the simulation of nature and animals.
-
Well, the only real world culture that remotely behaves like the Nerjpezit are some of the Andamanian tribes of Andaman islands (in the Indian Ocean) that attack anyone entering their islands at sight, but they're probably xenophobic because of past experience with foreigners, and aren't invading others and attacking them. You might possibly make some connection between the Nerjps and some of the former extremely blood thirsty middle American cultures when it comes to warfare.
Regardless, as it currently stands, the Njerps are basically inhuman creatures that either attack or flee, but with which you can't have any peaceful interaction, little less than rabid dogs that have to be eliminated for your own protection. Personally I'd like if they were given a little human touch, with occasional non hostile interactions, and defeated Njerps pleading for mercy (and actually leaving, most of the time if show mercy [without returning with a whole war band the next year]).
-
Yeah, I was searching for the historical proof that the Nerpez never tried to reach the western and northern cultures, as the changelog to [3.63] briefly tells us:
Version: 3.63 (stable)
[...] - adjusted: wandering Njerpez commonness based on the region
Wandering Njerpez are most commonly met in the east and south-east. That's an old rule which hasn't changed, but in the previous versions the borderline of their existence and non-existence was strict and rigid. Now the wandering Njerpez commonness is more gradual, decreasing the further into the west and north you go. Now it's been also verified that Njerpez raiders don't ever try to reach regions of western and northern cultures, so that's where to settle if you want to avoid raiders completely.
;D
The reasons are:
1. Njerpez didnt acually exist. (Main reson)
2. They were modified by artists freedom.
3. They could have been existing in the Indian Ocean even if they were hunting there for other type of seals than in the game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eared_seal
4. They acually were not humans because they only curse and dont talk to people. Probably also eat people.
5. They could not have been russians because on the one hand side there also must have been swedes, which are not been found and on the other hand side the etymological reference does not fit, because the referring tribe is on the wrong side of the map.
-
No one up to refute my statement?
-
Refute what? You got a direct answer from the game's own co-designer on their origins! What's left to speculate about? I don't understand.
-
Refute what? You got a direct answer from the game's own co-designer on their origins! What's left to speculate about? I don't understand.
Who told you you that a game-programmer is also a Historian M.A.?
The question is: "Was there a tribe in ironage that fits to the scenario of the game" (The name of the tribe obviously cannot be 'Njerpez' as Galgana already clearly mentioned). But what was the real name of the tribe that come in focus and around what year was it?
If someone is able to program in C is completely uninteresting for that question.
Do you understand it now BlankPaper?
-
But what was the real name of the tribe that come in focus and around what year was it?
I'm sorry if my previous reply was too unclear. Here comes a clarified reply:
Q: What was the real name of the tribe?
A: Novgorod Russians
Q: Around what year was it?
A: 1000 AD - 1200 AD
It is true that I'm not a Historian M.A. But I did study some folkloristics at the University. Naturally, that doesn't mean that I would be an unquestioned source of the ultimate truth. As always in science, we need further references, and we need to back our claims by evidence and we need to question the evidence, and we need to provide our sources etc etc. Honouring those principles I gave a few links in my previous reply. Especially this wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish%E2%80%93Novgorodian_wars). Sure, again we can say that wikipedia is not a fully reliable source. But that article has further references, so if you are interested you can dig further and read books, or the original sources like Novgorod First Chronicle.
Naturally, all of this can be questioned, as counterarguments are a crucial part of scientific thinking. One counterargument provided in an earlier comment was:
5. They could not have been russians because on the one hand side there also must have been swedes, which are not been found and on the other hand side the etymological reference does not fit, because the referring tribe is on the wrong side of the map.
It is very likely that I fail to understand the argument correctly. From my point of view the premises of that argument are somewhat vague. I'll provide a more detailed examination:
- the game takes place in a fantasy world which is inspired by real history. I fail to understand the argument that "if there are russians there also mut have been swedes". The only way I can understand this argument would lead to including the whole world in UnReal World, like "if you include tribe X, you must also include the other tribes which had interaction with X, and after that you also need to include further tribes which had interaction with them, and their neighbours also and then the tribes living near them and so and so on". But the answer is that no, we don't need to. In a fantasy game world we can choose what to include, where to focus and what to leave outside the game world.
- Also, I'm not so sure about the "swedes have not been found in UnReal World" part. The swedes are included in Foreign Traders.
- "the etymological reference does not fit, because the referring tribe is on the wrong side of the map" leaves me rather puzzled. As stated earlier, the word "Njerpez" is my own invention, a pseudo word. So there isn't that much of etymology to the word. It is just onomatopoeia in action. Also, the UnReal World map is not an accurate copy of real world map, so directions and dimensions could well be altered because of fantasy. But, funnily enough, in the case of Njerpez the geographical reference is accurate. Just like in the real history, seen from the viewpoint of Finnic tribes the Njerpez / The Novgorod Russians come from South-East. But, the thing is, that as a person who drafted this fantasy world, and the locations of the tribes, my brain is probably too stuck with the way I see it, so I'm having hard time wrapping my mind around some alternative way of seeing how "this or that tribe is on the wrong side of the map". I'll be happy to broaden my perspectives if provided a clear explanation which a half-educated mountain man like me can understand.
-
I can't believe that nowadays you have to prove the correctness of your fantasy world.
-
Let me come back to this: "Now it's been also verified that Njerpez raiders don't ever try to reach regions of western and northern cultures"
Verfied would mean proven. And as the discussion (not only in this thread) refers to history as a main base of the game, to me it looked like someone found a historical proof. From here I thought 'What a hoax, who proofed that?'.
If you say about my post # 6 that you dont really understand the arguments, thats obvious because they are actually not arguments but an ironic summary of what was posted before. Thought that was clear to be seen. That can happen when I have the impression that I get bamboozled. But only the grin smiley in addition I counted as a double check to prevent from misunderstanding that post.
As you use a present tense in the change log (what I just overlooked before) , possibly you mean it is >set< (instead of verified) in the current game scenario. This is when >verified< now only looks like an irritating word usage here. This is what I understand now after your explanation as you also mention that historical validation is fragmentary.
I dont count Wikipedia as so bad, as thousands look at i each day and mistakes would be found. Its maybe a little speculation but as you see the Novgorod map it looks quite like expansion and they probably would have tried to reach out. Even they reached the northern regions. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_Russlands#/media/Datei:Rus_de_Kiev_es_1237.svg
As you search from Russian history intead of Finnland history, it shows up easily.
If you draw the the game map maybe 40 degrees clockwise you also see that the raiders from the east actually are coming more from the south. Thats when someone looks for raiders from the east (historically) he will not find them.
Novgorod is one possibilty but according to the current scenario setup, I would count it as the second best because the game scenario shows no possibilty of success of the invaders, but in history it was there. If I include besides conditions I would count it only as the 3rd best, what is maybe a little surprising. Swedes are not necessary to explain traders. Even in stone age there were trading routes.
What I clearly dont like is someone coming in the 'I-am-style'. Sure, the adminitrator can implement little green guys coming from space to switch off the continent if the spirit of the water is angered. Or even slap off comments in the 'I-am-style'. But that means nothing and not everyone will count you as 'something else'. There is no reason to behave from upside to down as long there is nothing abusive, discriminating, ... You should know it yourself.
Other thing is: In the game desription on the public site the game is called "low-fantsy". In the discussion the historical reference is held high. "High-historical-low-fantasy" would that be coorect? I made no notes about it but repeatingly in the discussion I saw, when someone brings an argument what historically does not (really) fit, history will slap it off. But when someone then comes with history argumentation you easily say (besides others) that its just fantasy. This looks like switching the comfortable side any time you like. You find that thing in the 'Hare and the Hedghog' story where the actually faster one looks like slow.
Every scenario is somehow restricted and arranged. Thats also the case in the game. But that is not yet fantasy in my opinion. Even the quest stories of those spirits are something what exists in many variations in the mind of people. From that point of view I would not count it as 'Fantasy' in the strict sense. Fantasy for me would begin as dwarves and elves running around interacting. Also those Njerps are not fantasy not even really fictional as we found examples for them in area and other circumstances.
-
Let me come back to this: "Now it's been also verified that Njerpez raiders don't ever try to reach regions of western and northern cultures"
Verfied would mean proven. And as the discussion (not only in this thread) refers to history as a main base of the game, to me it looked like someone found a historical proof. From here I thought 'What a hoax, who proofed that?'.
Great, thank you for the clarification!
It is my understanding that in the game release notes "Now it's been also verified that Njerpez raiders ..." means that it has been verified that the game mechanics is functioning the way it is supposed to do. To put in other words; it has been verified that an old bug is now fixed in the game. It is not meant to be a reference to the real history outside the game. I really didn't understand that you took it as such, and I'd guess this has been a source of a lot of confusion in this thread.
I mean; in the real history Novgorod Russian do what they do. In the game world we have artistic freedom to decide what we want The Njerpez tribe to do, and for that the creators' decision is enough. So we have decided that we want them to be wandering mainly and mostly around the Eastern cultures of The UnReal World.
-
While things you said about history are true, saying that you are not a historian just because you can code a historical game is a huge understatement to the devs imo. This game is under development for 25+ years. The devs are also very much interested in the folklore, history of the proposed timeline and place.
You can defend the world you created by just saying that "I wanted it this way.", now I am not saying this is how Erkka and Sami are thinking but the novgorod situation is just silly IMO. I don't really understand what you really want by historical accuracy. Do you want the njerpez to completely eliminate eastern tribes as the time goes on? Do you want njerpez in Seal tribe areas?
To me, it is still a high history simulation. Just because you can't find real life representation of a tribe doesn't mean that the game is fantasy and the time and location should be changed or so. Unreal World, at least right now, is more concerned with you and the nature rather than historical relations about the tribes within the game.
-
If the game change log said: "Based on historical references it has now been verified that The Novgrod Russians never did thing X, and therefore in this game release The Njerpez also don't do thing X" then all the questions and arguments by user1805 would be highly on-point.
But, at the moment to me it seems that user1805 just slightly misinterpreted what Sami meant to say in the game change log. I believe Sami meant only to say that "It is intended that Njerpez behave in a way X, and it has now been verified that they really do X in the game."
Then, of course we can have another discussion about if Njerpez should behave this or that way based on fully accurate historical facts about Novgorod Russians. But, to me that seems to miss the point. The game doesn't claim to be 100% historically accurate. Many things are simulated based on historical facts, but not all the things need to be so. Especially the tribes, they contain a lot of artistic freedom. Therefore the game creator can say that "in the fantasy world I created the element X behaves in a way Y because I wanted it that way", and I find it hard for anyone else to counter that. Like, can anyone say that "I don't believe you imagined it that way, you need to imagine it some other way!". I always thought that the very essence of imagination is that anyone can imagine the way they do.
-
Normally, I'd just shrug and move on, but this is just a bit too much. Two men have been doing their damn best for good quarter of a century to develop a great product. That product is a work of fiction and loosely based on historical Finland. Moreover, for those who are slow on the get-go, the world its set in, called UnReal for a reason. So if devs want to make a culture with social graces of certain forum users - they absolutely can. If some historical event gave them inspiration to create that culture, but for some reason someone doesnt like it, or disagrees with what dev did in their own game - tough titty. BTW, Novgorod AND Moskovits were always aggravating everyone around them. At least till Moskovits conquered Novgorod and performed local genocide by killing most of the males novgorodians and mostly only raping females, after that it was only Moskovits. So its a small wonder they were so inspirational for creating this fictional culture. Oh and if you want to learn real history about Moskovia, use Byzantian, Ottoman, Greek or Vatican sources, that version of history modern Moskovia teaches would be funny, if it wouldnt be so damn sad.
P.S. Sorry Erkka, I'll go shut up now.
-
BTW, Novgorod AND Moskovits were always aggravating everyone around them. At least till Moskovits conquered Novgorod and performed local genocide by killing most of the males novgorodians and mostly only raping females, after that it was only Moskovits. So its a small wonder they were so inspirational for creating this fictional culture. Oh and if you want to learn real history about Moskovia, use Byzantian, Ottoman, Greek or Vatican sources, that version of history modern Moskovia teaches would be funny, if it wouldnt be so damn sad.
Oh, of course. Bad Russians again. Boo!!
And yeah, to learn the history of some country you always should use words of historical enemies of that country as a source. Always.
So typical!
-
Ilyich79, purely out of respect to our hosts here, I will not respond to you in the same tone as you phrased your post. Instead, I'll again politely direct you towards historical sources that were not methodically tailored to fit this or that Moskovia's ruler's ambitions. If you do not like to use the "enemies" sources, although Vatican and Byzantine clerks are world famous for their records (even to the point of being overly verbose and waaaay to detailed), please feel free to use the sources from your friends. Oh wait.... Well, use some other sources that can be cross-referenced with at least one other. Once you do, please share it and I'll gladly hear an alternative version of what happened to Novgorod. While you are at it, look up what happened to Tatarian Kazan after moskovit's conquest. Or Ukrainian Baturyn. BTW, the nickname qaṣṣāb, that surviving Kazan's population gave the invaders, still used in countries bordering today's Moskovia. Do spend some time and ponder why is that.
-
Ilyich79, purely out of respect to our hosts here, I will not respond to you in the same tone as you phrased your post. Instead, I'll again politely direct you towards historical sources that were not methodically tailored to fit this or that Moskovia's ruler's ambitions. If you do not like to use the "enemies" sources, although Vatican and Byzantine clerks are world famous for their records (even to the point of being overly verbose and waaaay to detailed), please feel free to use the sources from your friends. Oh wait.... Well, use some other sources that can be cross-referenced with at least one other. Once you do, please share it and I'll gladly hear an alternative version of what happened to Novgorod. While you are at it, look up what happened to Tatarian Kazan after moskovit's conquest. Or Ukrainian Baturyn. BTW, the nickname qaṣṣāb, that surviving Kazan's population gave the invaders, still used in countries bordering today's Moskovia. Do spend some time and ponder why is that.
You can respond in any tone you find suitable for the Russian barbarian. We long ago got used to all of them.
Okay. Now I have a master's degree in Sociology, so I guess I know a bit or two about world history and specifically European history. Oh, but it may be that I read wrong books. All the Russian annals are tailored. All ours archeological finds are forged. It's a given fact, you do not even have to prove that. Of course it would be pointless to try and tell you, for example, what happened to Russian towns and villages after raids of Khazan, Astrakhan, Crimean and other Khans from the shatters of Golden Horde. You already know that it is written in the wrong books.
May be to your surprise, I won't deny what happened to Novgorod (an Tver, and others for that matter). You see, in the Middle Ages countries fought. There was such things as a feudal strife and territorial conflicts. And it was ugly. Look up what Ottomans did with the towns they conquered. Look up what did Transylvanians, Franks, Romans, Poles. But of course for you they all are white and fluffy, only Muscovites (that's how it is spelled, by the way) are bloothirsty tyrants. Because so it is written in the right books.
To me, it all looks like a clear example of double standards - typical for modern Western world, as I said earlier. With this said, I rest my case.
-
I do understand that we are dealing with sensitive topics, and this discussion runs the risk of spiralling into fruitless flaming. And personally I don't want to see flamewars on UnReal World forums.
So I'll only ask this one clarification, just to make sure that I have properly understood what is being said by all participants.
But of course for you they all are white and fluffy, only Muskovites (that's how it is spelled, by the way) are bloothirsty tyrants.
I assume that is directed towards Dark Art. I re-read comments by Dark Art, but somehow I failed to find any sentence which claims that only Novgorodians and Muskovites were doing bad stuff. To me it seems that Dark Art just mentions a few unpleasant historical events. So, please Ilyich79, could you enlighten me by quoting a sentence or two from Dark Art, where it is claimed that 1. no other tribes performed nasty raids, or 2. only Novgorod and Muskovites performed nasty raids while others were all white and fluffy.
I mean, I can perfectly well understand that such accusations would be unfair and historically inaccurate, and in need of counterargumentation. The thing just is that in this very thread I can't find such accusations being made, so I'm having hard time understanding exactly what is Ilyich79 argumenting against.
-
Just to clarify - I never, ever claimed that only Muskovites exclusively were commuting atrocities. Thats just nonsense. Wars are never pretty. We were discussing the nature of fictional Njerpez and user1805 got all hot and bothered by the fact that Novgorod was primary inspiration for their creation.
Ilyich79, you can get as defensive and snappy as you'd like, but its a verifiable fact that your country has been tailoring history en mass even before imperial times. I do not mean this as an attack, but it IS a fact. As far as I recall, this became a trend since Ivan III started calling himself tsar.
-
I'm sorry Erkka, if I was of any inconvenience. I'll try to explain my feelings.
BTW, Novgorod AND Moskovits were always aggravating everyone around them. At least till Moskovits conquered Novgorod and performed local genocide by killing most of the males novgorodians and mostly only raping females, after that it was only Moskovits. So its a small wonder they were so inspirational for creating this fictional culture.
Red color by me. First of the redded lines is wildly historical innacurate, but let's assume that it is. So the game fraction of mindless killers is based on Novgorodians, as you, Erkka said yorself. Okay. (I myself have absolutely no problem with that, by the way) Then where from the Muscovites came to Dark Art's posts? Where the logic in this? If Novgorodians were such a bloodthirsty people, may be it was good thing when Moscow conquered Novgorod? But no, according to Dark Art, he just unites them with Novgorodians and proclaims them also (and more) inspirational for such a fraction. It seems to me that for comrade Dark Art all the Russians are like spiders in the box, eating one another until the strongest will survive and then the strongest will feel free to raid and kill his neighbours. Which all of them are very peaceful - because I think, it is clear without explanation, that you can aggravate only peaceful nations - if it is not peaceful that would be defence, not aggravation.
please feel free to use the sources from your friends. Oh wait....
So from this we see, that Russia (Dark Art means Moscow Russia, I guess) had no friends (it is not a historical truth also, but meh, okay). Like a bully in a class where all the other students are ... white and fluffy?
BTW, the nickname qaṣṣāb, that surviving Kazan's population gave the invaders, still used in countries bordering today's Moskovia. Do spend some time and ponder why is that.
I know that in the Middle Ages many of the European nations were very warlike. Many of them warred between each other, as I said before, during times of feudal strife or in the territorial conflicts. Many of them performed raids for plunder and slaves, like, for example (just an example!) Golden Horde. AFAIK Moscow Russia never performed slavery raids, in fact, there never was slavery in Moscow Russia (there was peasant serfdom, but it is another matter entirely). Novgorod and Tver were razed (not once) during feudal strifes between Russian knyazes. Khazan and Astrakhan were conquered (much later then the Iron Age, BTW) as a part of Moscow expansion to the south and also to protect southern russian borders from ... surprise-surprise, plunder and slavery raids by Khans.
So I pondered and the only explanation that came to mind, is that Dark Art somehow distingiushes Muscovites from all the European nations as the most inspirational for creating Njerpezit fraction - from this thought (okay, I can admit that it is in part a surmise) came all my words.
P.S. Especially for comrade Dark Art I will say also that I base my knowledge not only on schoolbooks, but on vast book and internet reading, not only in Russian language.
Edit:
Just to clarify - I never, ever claimed that only Muskovites exclusively were commuting atrocities. Thats just nonsense. Wars are never pretty. We were discussing the nature of fictional Njerpez and user1805 got all hot and bothered by the fact that Novgorod was primary inspiration for their creation.
Ilyich79, you can get as defensive and snappy as you'd like, but its a verifiable fact that your country has been tailoring history en mass even before imperial times. I do not mean this as an attack, but it IS a fact. As far as I recall, this became a trend since Ivan III started calling himself tsar.
I hear you and if I was somewhat rude, I would like to apologize. And to some extent I agree that some of Russian annals written in tsarist time are not a very reliable sources. Nevertheless, I mean every word written above. And in the modern Russian historiology we do not fully rely on mentioned sources.
-
and user1805 got all hot and bothered by the fact that Novgorod was primary inspiration for their creation.
It is my understanding that this thread leans a bit more to the funnier side. For user1805 didn't get upset about Novgorod being used as the source of inspiration - user1805 got upset about half-educated indie game creators carelessly throwing around claims like "it is now verified that thing X is a historical fact", and was like "how the hell do THEY think they know that?"
Which, naturally, appeared funny for the rest of us, for we didn't understand the misunderstandings of user1805. Apparently, user1805 thought Sami was stating claims about a real historical tribe, when Sami meant to speak about fictional Njerpez and him making verifications about the code simulating Njerpez behavior.
Since user1805 has not been commenting after this clarification was made, I'm not sure if the original topic is settled, but I hope so =)
Also, the original source of the confusion was that in the game the Njerpez are not attempting to conquer the entire UnReal World, but mostly just raiding around the eastern corner of the world. User1805 wanted to cite historical sources against that, presumably thinking that in the game the tribe should be reaching further to the north and to the west, since that is what Novgorod historically did. So, yes, earlier I was also thinking if I should ask Dark Art for more clarification on mentioning the Moscow Russia - I was waiting for user1805 to comment, but that didn't happen. I repeat; user1805 wrote more in the line that "THE NJERPEZ SHOULD BE AIMING TO EXPAND ALL THE WAY TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH, so how de hell do you claim that you know that they are raiding on the eastern part of the finnic territory?" I mean, to me it seemed that Dark Art also slightly misunderstood what user1805 tried to say, and then launched counter-arguments against a claim which maybe wasn't even made earlier in this thread. But this is all just human, it happens to all of us so often. And that is why I have this silly habit of stopping to ask for clarifications =)
So what do we have here, then?
If I understand correctly, everyone in this thread agrees that historically speaking Novgorod expanded their territory and raided neighbouring tribes. (Just like many other tribes did as well, and how numerous computer games are today about "be the hero, lead your tribe conquering more territory").
Also, I hope that everyone also agrees that in the game The Njerpez are not, and they do not need to be, 100% historically representation of Novgorod or any other bunch of people. It is fiction, and serves the purposes of the game world. But it has it sources and inspiration in history and Finnish folk stories.(And at this point I'd like to emphasize the "folk stories"-aspect. So, the most exact answer to the question "who were Njerpez" is: "they are inspired by the 'Raiders From the East' theme in the Finnish folk stories', and those folk stories in turn have their source in hundreds of years of hostilities with Finnish and Russian tribes.
So, everyone agrees the central topics of this thread, yes? Anyone, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (for personally I dislike "top-down" mentality as much as user1805 does.)
And then in addition to the original question this thread has had side paths, which is just natural for any human discussion. People feel a need to say aloud a few related thoughts which pop to their mind while reading the main discussion. So here we are; a few misunderstandings, a few semi-related side-remarks, a lot of good historical sources given.
-
Absolutely. The only reason I brought Muskovites into the mix is the fact that Novgorod was conquered by them. So even after Novgorod Republic stopped existing as a thing, raids would've continued regardless.
-
Since user1805 has not been commenting after this clarification was made, I'm not sure if the original topic is settled, but I hope so =) [...] So, yes, earlier I was also thinking if I should ask Dark Art for more clarification on mentioning the Moscow Russia - I was waiting for user1805 to comment, but that didn't happen.
The later discussion is somehow at the border of our off-topic-topic. But I also cant say its out of that topic. So should I come and say 'What are you doing there'. That would be unapproriate. Its also an emotional discussion (not seldom in forum). When I cant see that one of them is clearly wrong, what should be my statement? Thats when I thought - let them clarfy their thing first - as its not (really) mine. My topic was in the headline and it means to find out about how the Njerp can be explained by historical facts.
The other members aspect was to justify real tribes or not.
To calm down quarreling members as a referee is a moderators job. I think it was ok for me not to mix in there. What I can say is - Yes, I also think that DarkArt didnt get the content of the older posts clearly in more than one way.
Historical things, all what I saw in older threads, was always an important realistic core of the game, even as nature, hunting, fighting, trading. All are heading to reality. And if the game is called 'Unreal World' it does not contradict it, as every scenario is unreal in some way and only tells what could have happened but didnt. That differs from something fictional in the strict sense, as we also would not call a business-scenario or a science scenario as fiction. To tell sometning personal is, when the game is close to a scenario - this makes the game interesting to me and shows me aspects of nature (i.e.) what fiction or fantasy can not. It expands to the off-topic, when also other members show interesting videos of survival in the wildernes (i.e.) inspired by the game.
I didnt claim the Njerp have to try to reach out for more than a south-eastern region.
Thats when I didnt start the topic in the proposal but in the off-topic.
Even if its easy to be seen in some of my old posts, that I would count a little more mess (i.e. conflicts, other plants and recipes, more nasty citizens or robbers who would capture villages) as more interesting.
Actually my last statement was that there generally could be two other possibilities than Nowgorod to explain Njerps. I thought it was interesting to invetigate here. But obviouisly it was not interesting enough and people got their own aspects of the topic.
-
Absolutely. The only reason I brought Muskovites into the mix is the fact that Novgorod was conquered by them. So even after Novgorod Republic stopped existing as a thing, raids would've continued regardless.
Around 1000 A.D. Moscow wasn't even founded yet. Moscow state conquered Novgorod only by the end of the XV century. So very far from the Iron Age! So Njerpezit cannot be based on the Muscovites in any way. If they were, they would be better armed, may be even with firearms. Where are my guns? :))
Or do you really have historical proofs that Moscow in the XV-XVI centuries raided Finnish territories, which were, in fact, under Swedish protection by that time? Do you really think that was even possible?
P.S. Ok, I'll stop now. Vsyo.
-
True, of course Moscow or its Muskovia wasnt around the time of hypothetical Njerpez. I retract mentioned earlier parallels. In regards of Muskovia's raids or any other acts of aggression towards whats now known as Finland I think you'd better ask our hosts here.
-
Or do you really have historical proofs that Moscow in the XV-XVI centuries raided Finnish territories, which were, in fact, under Swedish protection by that time? Do you really think that was even possible?
Sweden and Novgorod settled their border at Treaty of Nöteborg] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_N%C3%B6teborg) at 1323 AD.
I think that after Novgorod fell, the Nöteborg peace treaty was not honoured by Moscow. So there were hostilities on Finnish territory, and the border was more or less disputed. One notable story in Finnish folk stories is the explosion at Viborg Castle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Swedish_War_(1495%E2%80%931497)#Explosion), 1495. Muscovites were attacking Finnish city of Viborg, but there was some sort of extraordinary blast which sent the Muscovites fleeing.
Muscovite army fighting a Finnish city at 1495 - is that XV-XVI centuries, or am I mistaken?
Ps. I've also read the comment by user1805, speculating that there could be two other possibilities to explain Njerpez. Okay. I have a Master's Degree in Philosophy, and now I must admit that I'm just confused and fail to properly understand the line of user1805's thoughts. And I can't comment on something I don't understand, so I will be silent of whereof I cannot speak =)
-
I think that after Novgorod fell, the Nöteborg peace treaty was not honoured by Moscow. So there were hostilities on Finnish territory, and the border was more or less disputed. One notable story in Finnish folk stories is the explosion at Viborg Castle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Swedish_War_(1495%E2%80%931497)#Explosion), 1495. Muscovites were attacking Finnish city of Viborg, but there was some sort of extraordinary blast which sent the Muscovites fleeing.
Muscovite army fighting a Finnish city at 1495 - is that XV-XVI centuries, or am I mistaken?
Not exactly a constant bandit raids I guess)) But in reality while thinking of marauding raiders I somehow let slip from my mind the matter of Russian-Swedish wars, which did happen pretty regularly during XV-XIX centuries. I do not want to elaborate now which of the two nations was an agressor in each instance (and of course, it is said in Russia that the Nöteborg 1323 peace treaty was not honoured by Sweden also, for example :)) ). But what I myself think on the matter is that two big countries vied for power in that region and the Finland was sometimes caught in the middle. In 1495 Vyborg was besieged not because of some explicit hostility against Finns. That siege was a part of the military campaign and city was defended by regular Swedish army garrison with Swede commandant Knut Posse in chief. But then, of course, there naturally were Finns in that garrison. That great blast is known to us as well, it is said in folklore that the blast was in the form of the St. Andrew's Cross, which meant that St. Andrew himself came to help the besieged, so Moscovian army withdrew.
But we digress. So I too think that we can say now it is established that Njerpez culture is inspired by Novgorodians in the Finnish east circa 1000 A.D., that Muscovites and centralized Russian state as a whole should be left beside the discussion as it came to life much later, and that everybody present is more or less content with the things said.
-
Da, no problem!
Also, I'm sorry my writing was again a little bit too vague. I didn't mean to claim that during XV-XVI centuries there were constant raids by Muscovites into Finnish territory. Nor did I mean to portray Finnic tribes as mere innocent victims. For me these are such self-evident basic premises that sometimes I forget to mention them.
Like, earlier in this thread I said: "And not just Novgorod expansion, but probably also Finnic tribes launching (counter)raids into Novgorod territory.", indicating that I'm aware that there was warfare to both directions, raids and counter-raids, strikes and revenge-strikes, and revenge-revenge-revenge -strikes and so on. (Also, Finnish peasants had a regular habit of establishing new settlements in the no-mans land on the Russian side of the border, thus making the border less meaningful, irritating the Russian side when they realized that Finnic tribes are silently expanding their territory. But most of this was not Finnic tribes raiding Russian villages, but just Finnich peasants doing slash-and-burn agriculture in uninhabitated woodlands. This can be considered as some sort of passive warfare, the western side of the peace treaty showing that they don't respect the treaty that much for they feel free to gain new lands east of the border.)
The linked article about Muscovites besieging Vybord also says: "The following year Russian generals Vasily Kosoy and Andrey Chelyadnin severely devastated Swedish Finland as far as Hämeenlinna (Tavastehus)." - sure, that doesn't mean constant raids.
I only meant to post a example that it indeed was possible that there were Muscovite raids into Finnish territory during XV-XVI centuries, and that there is historical evidence of at least one such raiding campaign led by Kosoy and Chelyadnin.
But, sure - this is getting severely offtopic and not that much related to the real-life inspirations of UnReal World game world.
To conclude, I'd like to emphasize that personally I have absolutely no intention to paint this or that historical tribe as "bad" or "evil". I'm not interested in blaming anyone. I think that if we examine history, the best we do is to try learn from the history, so that we and the future generations wouldn't need to repeat the mistakes of the past. Finnic and Russian tribes fighting each other and launching raids and counter-raids has been a historical fact. Personally I wish that things like these would stay in the history and happen no more. I have Russian friends and I've visited the country and I love many aspects of the Russian culture, especially the arts, music and literature.
-
I think that if we examine history, the best we do is to try learn from the history, so that we and the future generations wouldn't need to repeat the mistakes of the past. ... Personally I wish that things like these would stay in the history and happen no more.
My thoughts exactly.
I have Russian friends and I've visited the country and I love many aspects of the Russian culture, especially the arts, music and literature.
Well thank you, Erkka, and if I may be so bold, I would like to compliment Finland and Finnish culture and people too, your love of nature, diligence, strive for independence. I read Kalevala myths as a kid (it was translated into Russian in Soviet era and the book was present in my school's library). Your country is very beautiful and I certainly wish to visit it someday before i get too old :).