Coats of Arms, rules (only rules for now pls!)

[unmerged(8632)]

Vladimir came up with the basic rules, outlined the cases where several options are possible and suggested allowing players to select the exact one. Demetrios and other Noble Sires, your feedback would be highly appreciated.

The most basic ones:

(1) CoA's reflect titles.

(2) lesser title acquired by a higher one does not affect CoA, higher title acquired by lesser results in CoA on basis of higher with lesser contributing its most important element.

(3) equal titles combine up to 5. if more mergers happen after that, players select whether to replace either of the existing parts with the new one or discard the new one altogether. 5 is the most complex CoA you can get (so 3+3, 4+4 still = 5).

(4) equal titles result in (A|B) or (A/B) ("/" suggested to reflect horizontal line for the sake of easy typing ).

Q1: is (AB/BA) also a valid option for merger of (A) and (B) or it is strictly a sign that a heir is in place? if so, any rules to define whether it's (AB/BA) or (BA/AB)?

Q2: what is the difference between (A|B) or (B|A)?

 

[Demetrios]

Heh, I was thinking about splitting the old thread, but this works out fine too...

OK, time for Heraldry 101...

We start with titles "A" and "B". The male heir of "A" marries the female heiress of "B". If the titles are equal, the married couple would have the coat of arms of (A|B). A good illustration of this is in the movie "Braveheart" when Princess Isabelle wears a dress with the English and French CoAs in the (A|B) format (although it is historially incorrect as she could not at that point be considered the heiress of France). "A" goes before "B" because it is the CoA of the male heir. The (A/B) shield only exists for the original married couple; after their deaths, it disappears and is replaced by a different form! Should this couple have a child, when that child inherits both titles upon the deaths of his parents, the coat of arms from that time onward will be (AB/BA). "A" should occupy the first and last places as it is the title inherited in the male line, and will always remain in the first spot as long as the male line of inheritence continues. Thus if the male heir of A-B marries the female heiress of C, the resulting coat of arms for their children would be (AB/CA). If the male heir of A-B marries the female heiress of C-D however, the resulting coat of arms would be (AB/CD). But if A-B is inherited by a female, and she marries the male heir of C, the result would be (CA/BC), as C is the coat of arms inherited in the male line. Thus the first place should always go to the coat of arms inherited in the male line.

(Before anyone points out that the CoA of the English kings after the Hundred Years War had France first even though England should have gone first according to this rule, let me say that Edward III deliberately broke this rule to make himself look good to the French by placing the French CoA first).

I hope this cleared things up a bit? Or did I just make things a bit more confusing?

By the way, you said that the game will handle up to five CoAs on a shield. Where are you going to put the fifth one? In the point at the bottom of the shield, or in the center over the top of the other four (both were done historically)?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Demetrios
........ A good illustration of this is in the movie "Braveheart" when Princess Isabelle wears a dress with the English and French CoAs in the (A|B) format (although it is historially incorrect as she could not at that point be considered the heiress of France). ........

Not only that but she was never in Scotland or England before she was married to Edward II.

Thanks for the lesson. I had forgotten that the first and last quarter were the male line. were there CoAs divided on the diagonal instead of vertical and horizontal?

This idea is great. Surely we will create our own graphics (or MKJ or Leprechaun will create them rather) to compliment the ones which are part of the game.

Hurry Paradox/Snowball get moving on getting this game out.

 

[unmerged(8632)]

Yikes, thanks for that explanation -- it adds well to Vladimir's (though I think he relied too heavily on the Russian tradition . We'll do more checks to eliminate the strictly Russian things and I will post back an update here.

* We won't be splitting CoA's diagonally, decided to keep only vert. and hor. to make map window look better with all the zooms (dia will zoom out less recogn.).

* When 5 are mixed, our current idea is to place the 5th on top of all 4 in the middle.

And here's a question to you (we solved it but I won't tell you for now not to spoil :

Imagine Christian, strictly religious, adding title for a Muslim land. Do we have cross and crescent mixed on the new CoA? How would papal look -- with the muslim symbols on it? Or, say, muslims get pagan one that has a bear on it. Muslim CoA with animals???

We came up with a solution though .

 

[kurtbrian]

I'm not very into CoA, but I would suspect that if some christian nation got some 'heathen msolem land' they would make up a new CoA for that place and NOT use any Cresent moons or what have we


But that would probably be too difficult to make so I dunno....

 

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by sergei

* When 5 are mixed, our current idea is to place the 5th on top of all 4 in the middle.

Should work with historical facts. Quite a few shields had that. Some even split the center ones. However does anybody knows which line gets placed in the center? In Sweden IIRC the original family weapon got the center.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Strangely, medieval heraldry is something that I had rather a lot of formal training in back in the days when I was active in the SCA. Unfortunately I'm a bit rusty now so I'd have to go back to the dozen or so texts I have on the subject.

Demetrios is quite correct in his answer to your first 2 questions.

Your recent question...

IIRC, a crescent would almost never be employed in a Christian CoA unless the shield was at least quarterly and I expect that it would have to appear in base. It could, I suppose, be employed on a crenelated divide but I'd have to check that.

Animals are quite frequently used (eg. Italy) and the trick becomes where to place them. Often they would "jump" onto adornments...

Re 5 are mixed...To my knowledge, never. the fifth would be added to whichever quarter was appropriate.

I'll refresh my memory in the next couple of days and let you know.

 

[unmerged(1057)]

I think that heraldry in different parts of Europe are quite different, but I`m no expert..I have a series of books on swedish medieval heraldry and those simpler divisions with no symbols are most common..I don´t recall the heraldic words for it but chevron, pale and bend are some..Or just a lion, griffon or some other creature...not those with many smaller things and engrailments and stuff that one sees on the continental shields..

Did I make myself clear?..Probably not..

 

[Secret Master]

This sounds very exciting. We will actually have fully developing coats of arms for our dynasty.

I'm just curious, but if all of these rules are true, then why arn't the coats of arms of various powers more complicated. It seems that after 200 years, you could have a big, unwieldy coat of arms. Or does conquering lands outright not count towards your coat of arms, only dynastic unions?

 

[Demetrios]

State Machine: From around 1500 to around 1800 CoAs were generally very complicated, with people adding just about every CoA they could to their own. Then just about everyone but some of the minor German states decided that this looked way too messy, and most of them just reverted to much simpler patterns that kept the CoAs of the most important territorries...

OK, if the fifth CoA is going to be on top in the center, then it should be the family arms - in other words the "A" CoA from my example. The family arms inherited in the male line were always given the most prominent place, whether in the upper right (left from our viewpoint) or in the center over all...

Heraldry had its local variations, but for the most part followed the same general rules throughout Europe. Scotland was the main exception and did weird things with the quarterings. And it wasn't just Swedish heraldry that was simple in the Middle Ages, everyone's was, since the puropse of heraldry was originally for purposes of identification - a simple easy-to-see and recognize CoA was best, so you didn't want to have a lot of quarters or an excessive amount of figures and designs! You didn't want to sit there in the middle of a battle examining someone's CoA trying to determine if the 16th quarter had a gold lion on it to determine if he was a friend or an enemy! Heraldry only began to get complicated after 1500 when its original use for identification had become obsolete and it instead became a symbol of nobility. That's when thigns began to get complicated!

When a Christian conquered Muslim or pagan lands, they could and did make up a new CoA or they could adopt local symbols. Thus the Crusaders made up new CoAs for their states, but Spain adopted the pomegranate of Granada into their arms when they conquered that Muslim kingdom. More often than not they created a new CoA however...

A question on impaling arms - the (A|B) form used by a married couple before the arms are quartered for their heirs. This will work well when single CoAs are used on both sides, but once there are more than one on each side, it will get messy. What will happen when the heir of AB marries the heiress of CD, or worse, when the heir of ABCDE marries the heiress of FGHIJ? Can the game handle squeezing five CoAs on each side until a child inherits and has to chose which five he wants to keep? If this cause problems, then I would suggest we skip impaling entirely and just quarter when someone inherits more than one CoA...

Mr T - dredging up old SCA heraldry? LOL same here!

 

[Secret Master]

Errr, umm, Demetrios, I have to ask. When you mentioned State Machine in your post, were you really referring to me? I assume so, since State Machine hasn't been to this thread yet and it answered my questions regarding complicated heraldry. Just wondering, unless I really am State Machine, and I don't know it.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Secret Master
Errr, umm, Demetrios, I have to ask. When you mentioned State Machine in your post, were you really referring to me? I assume so, since State Machine hasn't been to this thread yet and it answered my questions regarding complicated heraldry. Just wondering, unless I really am State Machine, and I don't know it.

Sorry about that. With both names having the initals S. M., I get them mixed up periodically!

 

[Secret Master]

Quite alright, Demetrios. You wouldn't be the first person on the forum to make that mistake. If I remember correctly, I even think the great BiB himelf did once.

Im just glad I am confused with a well respected member of the forum...

Back to the topic at hand, would I be correct in assuming that heraldry is kinda like the complicated titles monarchs had in those days? For example, Ferdinand of Spain has several lines of titles listed by his name on the Treaty of Tordsillas. Duke of this, count of that, etc etc.

 

[unmerged(6160)]

The 5th quarter above the other four is a good idea, espacally for animals like the english lion. Also a coat of arms with a pattern like this E
A B C D



will this be in the game?

 

[unmerged(8632)]

(a) we adopted a "standard uniform CoA rules" that are not like either of the exact medieval european but rather a compromise; since players need CoAs for the same purposes as the original owners (recognize who is who, etc.), they m.b. distinct and functional. and they must be in the same format (all) to make merging/unmerging developments possible between either of ingame CoA's.

(b) the solution we designed for merging Muslim, Christian, Pagan:

take colors, replace symbol. symbols have a chart e.g.

Crescent = Bear = Cross
Quote in Arabian = Broadleaf tree = Bible

so we keep the logical chain but avoid nuicances of mixing religions on single CoA.

 

[Vandelay]

Muslim CoA with animals

Moslems did use battle insignia, but not heraldry in the European sense. Many Moslem nations did use animal imagery - the Seljuks, who should play a huge part in CK, used the double headed eagle to symbolize the Sultan of all Seljuks and a "normal" eagle to symbolize local rulers. This could of course be seen as a conscious use of a symbol to claim the Roman Empire.

Other Moslem dynasties would be much more orthodox and would never use animals as insignia e.g. the very strict Alomoravids.

Cheers,
Vandelay

 

[Shadowstrike]

Originally posted by Vandelay


Moslems did use battle insignia, but not heraldry in the European sense. Many Moslem nations did use animal imagery - the Seljuks, who should play a huge part in CK, used the double headed eagle to symbolize the Sultan of all Seljuks and a "normal" eagle to symbolize local rulers. This could of course be seen as a conscious use of a symbol to claim the Roman Empire.

Other Moslem dynasties would be much more orthodox and would never use animals as insignia e.g. the very strict Alomoravids.

Cheers,
Vandelay

The Seljuks and the Ottomans who followed them claimed the title of "Sultan of Rum" (IIRC), and saw themselves as the continuation of the Roman legacy. This legitimized their rule over "Roman" Anatolia, and later, the "Roman" European territories of the Byzantines.

 

[unmerged(547)]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike


The Seljuks and the Ottomans who followed them claimed the title of "Sultan of Rum" (IIRC), and saw themselves as the continuation of the Roman legacy. This legitimized their rule over "Roman" Anatolia, and later, the "Roman" European territories of the Byzantines.

Yep, sometimes even called the Imperator (spelling?) at Rum.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by sergei
(a) we adopted a "standard uniform CoA rules" that are not like either of the exact medieval european but rather a compromise; since players need CoAs for the same purposes as the original owners (recognize who is who, etc.), they m.b. distinct and functional. and they must be in the same format (all) to make merging/unmerging developments possible between either of ingame CoA's.

(b) the solution we designed for merging Muslim, Christian, Pagan:

take colors, replace symbol. symbols have a chart e.g.

Crescent = Bear = Cross
Quote in Arabian = Broadleaf tree = Bible

so we keep the logical chain but avoid nuicances of mixing religions on single CoA.

Thats a great idea. It really simplifies things and helps make recognition easier than trying to figure out an inscription on a little shield.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Sergei

Initial results of my quick look through my old texts seem to suggest that even quartered fields are fairly uncommon (I hesitate to say "rare" yet) prior to the late 14th century and I have not been able to find a five-insignia shield like you're proposing at any time during that period.

Virtually all CoA seem to be very simple designs (makes sense since you need t be able to tell at a distance if the bearer represents a threat) and consist primarily of:

1. Fields
Early Arms are either a single plain field, or two plain fields with vertical division. Horizontal and diagonal divisions seem to become more popular in the early 13th century.

Quartering of a field, as I said above, is quite rare unless this is a full-shield cross (in which case it is not for the purposes of placing a seperate CoA in each quarter, but for its crucifix allusions). You might see different charges (heraldic "objects") placed in the quarters, but not as a basis for Armorial separation.

2. Charges
Usually between one and three charges that have some symbolic or representative tie to the bearer. You see larger numbers of charges creeping in later, but not often in this period.

These are usually refered to in three classes: the Ordinaries, the Subordinaries, and the Common.

Common ones seen frequently in this time period are eagles, bears, boars, wolves and other animals that people of the region would be familiar with (i.e. you wouldn't see lions, tigers, etc. until later when the African continent was opened up to a greater degree). You also see occasional body parts (hands and arms being the most frequent).

Subordinaries seem, perhaps, to be more frequently employed than Common charges and consist of things like bezants, rondels, cinquefoils, orles, and so on.

The most common charges by far, though, are the Ordinaries...crosses, stripes, bars, bends, etc. over which you will occasionally see Subordinaries and Commons placed.

Again, the simplicity of the design and its recognizability at a distance was of the greatest importance.

3. Tinctures
Watch out for colours. In this time period (and ever since, really) there are only seven colours employed in heraldry.

The metalic tinctures: Or (gold) and Argent (silver/white) were fairly expensive and only the wealthiest rulers could afford to emblazen everything in their realm with them.

Much more commonly seen are the tinctures Gules (red), Sable (black), Vert (green), Azure (blue) and Purpus (purple)

IIRC, vert was fairly uncommon in the early part of the millenium because it was also an expensive colour to make.

**********************************************

All of this leads me to question, somewhat, the idea you're looking at of representing multiple bloodlines in the CoA. As I say, I have only done some quick skimming of the reference material I have, but this practice did not emerge until considerably after the period that CK will cover.

My 2 ducat's worth. Let me know if I can help/explain further.