HOME | DD
aldohyeah — satw - britain, ireland, and france - medieval
Published: 2012-06-02 01:03:55 +0000 UTC; Views: 12022; Favourites: 160; Downloads: 182
Redirect to original
Description
here's the satw characters of britain, ireland, and france... in mediæval style!usually they're wearing the flags we know today, but i'm drawing them with the royal banners they used to fly back in the old times.
england wears the royal standard of england (without the arms of ireland, and scotland combined in it) [link] . i gave him a crown because england claimed the rulership of scotland, wales, ireland, and even france as an inheritance from his anglo-norman ancestors.
france (on righthand side of england) wears the flag of mediaeval france [link] . i feel the need to include france, because her rivalry with england is always an epic story, like the story of william the conqueror and jeanne d'arc.
wales (on lefthand side of england) wears the "flag of gwynedd" [link]
scotland (the rightmost) is wearing the royal standard of scotland [link] , under a kilt (i don't know if it's called kilt; i always thought the kilt is like the one like a skirt). well, my only reference is the movie 'braveheart'
, which includes the battle of stirling.. so that's why the pic of the uncoloured version of him [link] i called "the man from stirling".. hahahaha ireland's (the leftmost) clothes are based on the coat of arms of ireland in the past [link] .. i don't think it's the flag of mediaeval ireland, but i like it. not quite a thorough research!
the colours are made to be rudimentary and outside the lines.. for a purpose... (bad excuse
). not perfect but i hope you like it. 
background is taken from this [link] page.
all scandinavia and the world characters belong to
Related content
Comments: 60
The kilt wasn’t invented until the 17th century. Medieval Scots would wear attire very similar to their English contemporaries. Braveheart is a relatively inaccurate film, but on the other hand, there is little information about medieval Scottish attire so it’s understandable that a popular movie might be seen as historical accuracy with lack of other sources.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Technically the arms of Ireland (a gold harp on a blue field) IS medieval, but it didn't represent the country/kingdom until adopted by Henry VIII when he abolished the Lordship of Ireland in 1541. Before then, it was sometimes attributed to the Ard Ri of Ireland from the 13th century onwards. Before then, however, Ireland was divided into several kingdoms, each with their own symbols.
Also, if I may nitpick, the way Scotland is wearing his kilt is very post-medieval.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Comments from an actual Scot, about Scotland:-
1) He is wearing a philamohr (also great kilt, or just plaid) which is correct in period.
2) From your notes, you're thinking of the philabeag (or small kilt) as the "pleated skirt".
3) The philamohr would normally be worn over a shirt as illustrated, but the shirt would normally be of plain linen or cotton, rather than dyed with the colours of a standard.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thank you very much for the information.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There's more:-
1) In period, clans would identify themselves by the pattern of their plaid (the origin of tartans), and frequently by a "device" (used in the heraldic meaning) on their cap or in their hair. This might be almost anything, including particular flower, or an identifiable specied of bird's feathers.
2) Like on your Scandanavian medievil characters, they would often carry a device (or representation of a clan badge) on their shields.
3) The origin of "nothing is worn under the kilt" is that they would often remove the philamohr before entering a planned battle, and attack wearing oly their shirts and devices.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
and as for a reply to the subject discussed here by *Karalora , ~Moschonn , and ~Telepfenion , from my own experience during my school years, history taught at school is mostly about our own country; about the migration of the mongoloid and austronesian race to the archipelago that will be the ancestors of all the ethnic groups in indonesia, the rise of hindu-buddhist kingdoms, rise of islamic kingdoms, european explorations of the archipelago, of how we became a dutch colony for almost 4 centuries, japanese expansion, post-independence era from 1945 to 1998, the 'reformation'. we don't study much about what happened across our seas.
what i studied about world history is: dawn of human civilization in egypt, babylonia, china, india, and sometimes about greece and rome. but all of those topics combined did not have more than 30 pages of discussion in the textbook. the school taught about the world war i & ii, too, but it didn't go much into detail.
i personally knew about the european history because of playing video games. i liked it, so i looked it up a little bit in school libraries, in encyclopaedias.
so if i made an inaccurate historical references, i hope you all will kindly tell me the right one. if i deliberately ignore the accuracy for my own pleasure
thank you very much guys!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice drawing.
One correction though. England's claim over France wasn't because kings of England have Guillaume le Conquérant as ancestor.
The story is this one, I let you shorten it. 
Here's the trick: Philippe 4 le bel's crown had no direct heir, at list in France: the only living male among the king's descent was... Eduard, heir of the crown of England, who became Edouard 3 Plantagenêt.
However, the greatest lords of France would have hated to see France crown on an English head. So the Pairs of France decided to come back to one of the oldest traditions of France: the election of the king. And they elected Philippe 3's nephew as king - who's nickname was "le roi trouvé".
At first, the young and new king Eduard 3 vaguely protested and claimed France crown.
Several years have passed, and the king changed his mind and claimed again the crown. And declared war to obtain it.
So here's the story. Abridged. If you wanna know more, there's a story in 7 parts available : "the Cursed Kings" (Les Rois Maudits) by Maurice Druon.
Another thing, another correction: the coat of arms isn't that one for England if you wanna keep France by his side: the coat of arm of England kings when they claim France crown is that one: [link] : "quarterly, I and IV azure semy-de-lis Or; II and III gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or armed and langued azure" at first, then - when the kings of France changed their own coat of arms": [link] : "quarterly, I and IV azure three fleur-de-lis Or; II and III gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or armed and langued azure".
Sorry, I'm very maniac about this part of history. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i hope you're not offended by the shortness of my reply to your long comment, but thank you very much for the information, a very helpful addition to the page.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
thank you, thank you, thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
and she'll be wearing the flag that joan herself designed
thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you're welcome. i've been called a generous fountain of inspiration, though my family tells me if i ever want to make money on my ideas i oughta keep my mouth shut.
i love Joan of Arc. i have this little info page about her (admittedly given to me from a catholic church) and i look a ton like her portrait.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're being too hard on yourself; since you mentioned the crown this must be post-1066, a chaotic era at best. Its not like you're depicting Merovingians and Jutes....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
where am i being too hard on myself? am i using the wrong references?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wonderful concept! You did manage to make it pretty accurate to that period in spite of doing little hard research on the matter.
If you're up for it, I think you should next go with the Scandinavian guys during the Viking period.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i wanted to do that, but as far as i know, in the viking period, the scandinavians haven't invented their flag yet, they were flying raven banners instead.
thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very nice
In a coat of gold or a coat of red,
A lion still has claws,
And mine are long and sharp, mi'lord,
As long and sharp as yours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
wow 
is it made by you or an old poem?
thank you anyway
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can't take credit for that one, as much as I'd like to.
That belongs to George R. R. Martin, author of A Game of Thrones.
Although I am a poet *shameless plug* Check out my gallery
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i have read some of the poems you posted on the folder 'dark poetry', if you don't mind i'll be reading more. heheheh
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ahh, that stuff's pretty old now. I'd like to think I've gotten better since I wrote those ones. But thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i find those are really good, and if you say you've gotten better..
i used to be able to make poems (in my native language, mostly, but sometimes in english too) when i still went to school, but as i entered college it's gone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table!
Great historic rendering!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not sure England is really England without his monocle, but other than that this is a nice novel twist on the SatW concept.
The garment Scotland is wearing is called a great kilt. The regular kilt everyone is familiar with is a truncated version without the shoulder wrap.
And then the Scandinavia boys cruised in and set them all on fire. Yay!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Actually the Viking raids were some centuries before the Britannic wars. Still, Norway came over, but they kicked him out again and proceded to smash in eachother's heads. Isn't history nice?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
history's quite boring until age of empires came to existence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, I know this from Medieval II: Total War. The Britannia expansion, to be precise. But I like Age of Empires, too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I know. I was trying to be funny, not accurate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Guessed so, well, sorry in case I annoyed you
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nah, I'm not annoyed.
To be honest, I think I've learned more about European history and culture from SatW than I ever did in school.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's one of the many flaws of the American education system: the history curriculum are very USA-centric. I know that not all lessons about America, but as far as I know (which can be very far from the facts), it's mostly about the twohundredfifty years from the Thirteen Colonies to WWII. For camparison, history classes of my country are about the rise of Athens to the fall of the Berlin Wall, which is about ten times as long. Yet I have to admit that it's mostly about my country too, save for the Greek and Romans, and we've skipped Alexander the Great, the Crusades, the Mongol invasion and the Hundred-Years-War (all which I regret deeply), the Thirty-Years-War and most of the time between that and the French Revolution.
In fact, most of the things I "know" about medieval Europe I learned either from SatW or from games like Age of Empires II, Empire Earth and Medieval II: Total War, and as one can guess that "knowledge" isn't always really reliable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I expect the history curricula in most countries focus primarily on that country. What makes this particularly bad for the U.S. is that it's still a very new country and has been influenced tremendously by a large number of other countries. You can't get a proper view of U.S. history without studying world history, but they expect us to anyway. In the schools I attended, the world history courses came after the U.S. history courses, so we were missing that context.
Also, my teachers didn't know how to make it remotely interesting. It was just memorizing names and dates. There were no field trips associated with history class.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course history classes are mostly about the country you're in, but you can overdo it. And who the set up such a stupid schedule? History is a fluent process, that you don't understand, if you just jump in the middle of things. You have to start at the beginning. Sometimes I don't understand how some people can be in charge of such things!
Yeah, history is highly teacher dependent. If your teacher is good, they'll make any era interesting one way or the other, but if they aren't, well, you seem to know well enough. We didn't do that much field trips, not just in history classes, but in general. All in all, we made about six or seven trips in the entire middle and high school time (Not counting the unnecessary class outings.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Not too sure about that. Of course Finland is relative young as nation but apart Winter, Contanious and Lapland's Wars we fought against Soviets and Nazis, we tend to lack better focus on rest of our own history.
Reason for this is two-fold - first, we simply have relative little own history as most of history falls under either Sweden's or Russian's history.
Secondly, Finns weren't really united group of people before nationalism - vast majority of us lived in small almost isolated communities and were contact with goverment as little as possible - and nationalism weren't spread by commoners but those highly educated people...
...and many such educated people had background of Swedish-citydwellers, something totally different from the sub-human forest-pagans (as especially Scekomans saw native Finns).
We did have our native folklore survived long with Christianity (guess Finns are always been mainly just practical Christians instead real believers as this thing hasn't changed...) and that is only reason why works like Kalevala and lots of other documents about Finn's mythology and folklore were able to be written down 700 years later we officially become pure Christians without ability of writing...
Thanks to real nationalists researchers who were truly intereted about our culture, we have know lots of documents about our past. However, thanks to Svekomans who used nationalism to install their visions as "Finn's culture and political power, we are not teached about whole change in general - (at least 5th grade) history books just states that Swedes made first crusade here at 12th century and there is no mentioning anything about Finns habits before or after it - guess this was empty spot on map which just turned out as Sweden's province filled with Christians simply by coming here...
I wouldn't have learn about this in school unless our history teacher in high school would have been truly motivated and often extending subjects to cover what book didn't tell. And even he talked about subject really little when he was telling us how "Beast-hatred" or "Beast-fear" got started and why it is still around
Basically, to cut Finns bound to nature (due old belivies we respected it instead saw it simply source of resources as proper Christians saw it at that time) and thus various rumours of nasty deeds (like stealing babies, causing havoc etc) of beast were spread and people were paid good money from killing these nasty beast - bears (highly res), wolves, wolverines, lynxes as well as dreaded Saimaa ringed seal and probably more species as well - and main aim was to get those die out...
Now many of those are endangered, but fear and hatred remains. People are still so sentimental about those beasts that many turn blind eye for illegal hunting of those. Most beasts are harmless for humans, at least if you know how to act with them, and for pets as well if you keep care of them. But people won't change their care-free habits and when soemthing happens, it is beast's fault and those must be shot immediatly!
*sigh* People scare their childrens with beasts and teach them to fear and hate them. And reasoning doesn't work because emotions areb't rational.
But I got off topic. We are teached about our own history relative little, partially because nobody were documenting Finn's points of view along the history until 19tj century and once there, parts of our history that didn't suit "true-god-fearing-christians" stereotype were left out.
Then we got independted and soon after came civil war - and latter is still a subject not to teached that much and then still bit quiet period before wars linked to Second World War which teaching tend to focus due national pride especially in Winter War and then... well. Maybe stuff like when Finland joined EU or so but nothing big.
Then again, this leaves lots of courses to learn histories of other places and people. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greek, Roman Empire, after Roman's fall.. In this sense, I raelly liked our history courses. Filled with lots of interesting stuff from every direction (mainly from Europe but not limited to it) and felt cheated only after I found out what I wasn't told about our own history.
If it would have been part of primary school course, even in short way, it would have been "ok" but part of high school's history lesson, and even there only glancing hit due linked to other topic, it was like our system would still try to hide our past or shame what we were.
And then they wonder why many tend to favour foreign stuff over our own. Svekomans are gone (at least mostly - RKP at least officially doesn't think native Finns as sub-humans) but I guess their shame they felt towards us is still stuck in our bureaucratic machinery.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First off, this is a long post. I won't respond in detail on all your points, but only those I have atleast some knowledge of.
It's always a problem when little is known about a certain period of time (i. e. Germany in Germanic times) or a certain culture (i. e. the Mayas). Even worse if they don't have letters or you can't read them.
This fear of any wild animal is not only a Finnish problem, but it seems to be really extreme there. The Grimm's fairytales cause fear of the "big bad wolf" and things like that. And it seems this fear isn't dead today, as the first bear on German ground for twohundred years or so was shot because the killed some sheep and the media caused panic about him, calling him "Problem-Bear" and other such nonsense. The wolves in Eastern Germany are under tight supervision, to ensure they aren't a danger to humans. Which is nonsense because wolves run away as fast as they can if they encounter a human and aren't near starving.
I guessed your people takes great pride in Talvisota, seeing who you fought against and that you won against them.
I guess everything has it's ups and downs. We didn't learn anything about Ancient Egypt and almost nothing about Ancient Greece (except for Athens and their early democracy).
I actually prefer other countries history over our own, too, but that's probably because at a certain number of times you heard about the Third Reich and all that shit that went down back then, you get tired of it. I was tired after the third time. In the thirteen years I went to school in total, we did that topic seven times in total. You can guess I was a tiny little bit fed up with our curriculum. We could have done much more interesting topics (i.e. Alexander the Great) that have impact until today (i.e. the Crusades) while we wasted time repeating the repetition of repeated stuff.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, there is little documents about Finnish pre-Swedish history and even after that documents are pretty much Swedish rulers point of view. However, our habits didn't die off until mid 19th century when lots of stuff that has cerried through spoken-heritage were written down - and even there are these documents around, it is mostly ignored.
Well, before kill-moneys and spread rumours Finns treated beasts pretty fair - sure, there were always certain fearful respect but similar fear we feel towards big horses, something that comes for understanding that other can be dangerous but mostly likely only so if misreated.
For example, according folrlore bears won't attack women unless they are pregnant for a boy (ie future hunter and thus threat for bear itself). There were also teaches how to act should one encounter beast in wilds. Heh. If they had lived alongside beasts of forest for their lives like generations before, I'm not surprised that people had learned ways to treat the beasts without too much fuss. These practical skills were also almost vanished because all civilized people shoots the beasts instead backing away with respect...
Heh. Technically, we didn't even win the Talvisota, we just didn't lose it as badly as everyone was expecting. But yes, it is source of national pride - not only because the outcome but because it also showed that wounds of civil war were (almost fully) sealed. On other hand, Stalin expected that Reds would have invited Soviet forces whith cheers but they fought against them instead.
It is true that each system has their flaws and merits, and I wouldn't have enjoyed to listen about Winter War for seven times or even two - we basically had only one year for Finnish history and even that could be spread to be more widered of subjects.
Too bad that it isn't someone else than school kids that decide which is important to learn (or, with our pagan-nature even in near history, which parts are left untold).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm actually planning to become a history teacher and maybe change something about these terrible curricula, so the next generation has more from their history classes than mine had. Change the world little by little, or so they say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wish you all the luck for your career and hopefully you have certain freedom when it comes education plan - trouble comes when those plans are usually set by someone who really care about history - or maybe in this case, cares only own history - and all history books schools will be provided (or, do you need buy your own school books?) reflects that plan.
Then again, Humon's SatW collections would be pretty awesome history books to have, though, and I would expect that those "history books" would be really popular even out of the classroom.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you very much, I'll do my very best. I'm not sure anybody at our ministry of education gives a damn about what is going on at the schools. They sit in their ivory tower and just throw out the curricula every twelve months.
We have to buy our books ourselves, but financially weak families are getting the money from the government, since it can cost up to 200€. Each year.
I'd like to teach with Humon's comics, the students would probably love the history lessons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh? You don't have united plan for what all kids at certain age are supposed to be taught to ensure common basic knowledge? I could image that German's education plan could indeed involve mainly German's own history but still that history taught is pretty much the same - of there will be certain variation along the teachers but I don't think there is any teacher who would skip, lets say for example Luther, because would think him as heretic and thus unsuitable for kids to learn from?
Outh. 200€ is a big money. However, that at least mean that teachers can actually pick out any history text book out there instead going with the ones school owns - instead telling kids to get "History of Early Years of World War II" one can simple them to get book about progress of Chinese inventions and influence of those. ...or dinosaurs.
History lessons tend to be lessons kids love nether to less if teacher has even little bit interested about it and if they won't need to hear same thing again and again. Then again, telling kids to go net and find a subject they will need to introduce for others later on and placing SatW's link among suggested sites where to find inspiration could be jack-pot too. I could image how much they would enjoy simply looking up something funny yet interesting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is one curriculum for every Bundesland (equivalent to the States in America, I don't know the Finnish counterpart, though), making it curricula in total. It's a real mess: If you went to school in, say, Bavaria, and start to study in Berlin, the Profs are expecting a different knowledge than what you have. On the other hand, since most of the German countries have been independent for much of the last two milleniums, there is often stuff that may be only important to a certain Bundesland (e.g. the history of the Teutonic Order, which later became Prussia, in Berlin, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, as they were Prussian territory. Or the romanization of the Gallic tribes as the Southern and South-Western territories of Germany were part of Gaul back then.
It's not that simple. the ministry of education in every Bundesland makes its own booklist, and the pupils must buy these books. The teachers, however, have little to no influence on this booklists, and often, the books that were bought for much money, get dusty in the shelf, because the teacher is using another book, with which they can teach better, and the pupils all have to buy that said book. I actually never the most expensive books I had to buy in my school time. My parents weren't exactly happy with that, yet I was, since those were the heaviest books on the list, too.
I'm a big fan of history, so I guess that's a good start. But I have no influence on the curriculum, so I can't really decide what I teach, but only how. But I'll keep the tip with the SatW-Link in mind, and may it only be to show the pupils at the beginning of the schoolyear that history can be funny, too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>