Viking Age: Total War!

[Frans Ubberdork]

Lets see..lets have a mod where all the vikings are rebels....and none have any axes..let us go for historical accuracy too....heat strokes in hot weather..the vikings have to sharpen the weapons after battle....oh and do not forget the raping after the battle....
come on a viking game mod is about having a good time with the vikings not about annal realism. total realism games can get quite boring. If I want to play with vikings, I want to do it like I picture vikings, big scary warriors with all kinds of weapons(no horns on helm tho)

[CrackedAxe]

Ok, excuse me if I`m wrong on some stuff, haven`t bothered to read everything in this thread.
Is this going to be a mod where the Vikings are the focus?
Speaking from a norwegian standpoint. If you are to make a Viking era mod, it is time to put away the nationalistic image of the "glorious" vikings that the nationalromantic writers of the 1800s established, and the nazis continued.

- The state of Norway should not under any circumstances have any viking soldiers, Vikings were banned from Norway. And several of the Norwegian kings went through great trouble to root out Vikings, Harald Haarfagri(first king), followed vikings to both Denmark and the islands north of Scotland to slaughter as many as he could. His son was also raised at the English court.
Vikings were in short terms stateless warriors.

- If you are going to focus on the vikings, why are you including a map over all of Europe? The Areas the Vikings managed to establish themself for short periods were mainly the British isles, France, and down in East Europe. To include the south Europe and the middle East would be pointless, the conflicts with the vikings would be mere buzzing in northern Europe. And Norway would certainly not be very strong. First of, they did not have an imperialistic foreign policy, Norway was not involved in any wars with any foreign nations, and the population was low.

- Why does the game start in the year of 900? The Viking attacks started at full a 100 years earlier(even though attacks can be traced all the way back to 500), by the year 900, a city like Paris had been burned like 3 times. And by this time the Vikings had looted out most of the gold they could find on all of Ireland, including digging ut most of the graveyards when all the all the churchgold was taken. Where is the logic in starting the game at 900 if the Vikings are the focus? Most of the bloodbaths in England, Ireland and France was over at the year 900, and they had lost control over Ireland.

-Quick notes.. Vikings did not fight with axes.
Trells did not fight either.

I really do not understand this post AT ALL, where did you learn your history? First off, Harald did NOT ban vikings. When he became the first king of all Norway, many vikings simply refused to accept his rule. Remember, there had been no concept of a nation until this point and most vikings followed their own regional lord or king and no other. This rejection of Harald led to many vikings leaving Norway to set up elsewhere, many forming raiding bases in Scotland, so Haralds kingship actually led to an INCREASE in norwegain viking raider activity. The reason why Harald sought to attack them was because many of these vikings refused to pay him tribute, not because he had 'banned' them.

Secondly, why should'nt the map include all europe? why exclude Hasteins epic raids against the moors in southern Spain and North Africa, not to mention his sacking of what he thought was Rome. Or why exclude Olegs eastern viking nation (the Rus)? Or the viking attacks against Byzantium.

Also, viking raids in England, Ireland and France had NOT ended by the year 900, in fact, they intensified. The Battle of Maldon, 991 AD, was one of MANY such battles in the British Isles at the time. Viking attacks did not end until the Battle of Stamford Bridge 1066 AD.

Lastly, 'vikings did not fight with axes', lol, are you crazy? How much archeological avidence do you think you are ignoring here? The axe was second only to the sword in the vikings armoury, some vikings actually preferred it, for example, King Knut (a viking invader of England) would allow his elite Huscarl bodyguards to be armed with axes only. This became a tradition for all English Huscarls afterwards.

Hope this clears some things up for you.

[Meneldil]

I kinda agree with CrackedAxe here. I'm not much of an expert about viking age, but I think half of your statements are wrong.

Anyway, since we don't have any skinners, the mod is kinda dead right now.

[Nidhogg]

really do not understand this post AT ALL, where did you learn your history?

Books based on literature from that period of time: annals, chronichles, sages, old laws.. etc...
And the works of Snorre Sturlason (1179-1241).

Snorre writes:

22. KING HARALD'S VOYAGE TO THE WEST.

King Harald heard that the vikings, who were in the West sea in
winter, plundered far and wide in the middle part of Norway; and
therefore every summer he made an expedition to search the isles
and out-skerries on the coast. Wheresoever the vikings heard
of him they all took to flight, and most of them out into the
open ocean. At last the king grew weary of this work, and
therefore one summer he sailed with his fleet right out into the
West sea. First he came to Hjaltland (Shetland), and he slew all
the vikings who could not save themselves by flight. Then King
Harald sailed southwards, to the Orkney Islands, and cleared them
all of vikings. Thereafter he proceeded to the Sudreys
(Hebrides), plundered there, and slew many vikings who formerly
had had men-at-arms under them. Many a battle was fought, and
King Harald was always victorious.

24. ROLF GANGER DRIVEN INTO BANISHMENT.

Earl Ragnvald was King Harald's dearest friend, and the king had
the greatest regard for him. He was married to Hild, a daughter
of Rolf Nefia, and their sons were Rolf and Thorer. Earl
Ragnvald had also three sons by concubines, -- the one called
Hallad, the second Einar, the third Hrollaug; and all three were
grown men when their brothers born in marriage were still
children Rolf became a great viking, and was of so stout a growth
that no horse could carry him, and wheresoever he went he must go
on foot; and therefore he was called Rolf Ganger. He plundered
much in the East sea. One summer, as he was coming from the
eastward on a viking's expedition to the coast of Viken, he
landed there and made a cattle foray. As King Harald happened,
just at that time, to be in Viken, he heard of it, and was in a
great rage; for he had forbid, by the greatest punishment, the
plundering within the bounds of the country. The king assembled
a Thing, and had Rolf declared an outlaw over all Norway. When
Rolf's mother, Hild heard of it she hastened to the king, and
entreated peace for Rolf; but the king was so enraged that here
entreaty was of no avail. Then Hild spake these lines: --

"Think'st thou, King Harald, in thy anger,
To drive away my brave Rolf Ganger
Like a mad wolf, from out the land?
Why, Harald, raise thy mighty hand?
Why banish Nefia's gallant name-son,
The brother of brave udal-men?
Why is thy cruelty so fell?
Bethink thee, monarch, it is ill
With such a wolf at wolf to play,
Who, driven to the wild woods away
May make the king's best deer his prey."

Rolf Ganger went afterwards over sea to the West to the Hebrides,
or Sudreys; and at last farther west to Valland, where he
plundered and subdued for himself a great earldom, which he
peopled with Northmen, from which that land is called Normandy.
Rolf Ganger's son was William, father to Richard, and grandfather
to another Richard, who was the father of Robert Longspear, and
grandfather of William the Bastard, from whom all the following
English kings are descended. From Rolf Ganger also are descended
the earls in Normandy. Queen Ragnhild the Mighty lived three
years after she came to Norway; and, after her death, her son and
King Harald's was taken to the herse Thorer Hroaldson, and Eirik
was fostered by him.




Conclusion: Vikings were a pain in the arse even to their own countrymen... therefor they were made outlaws. Gulatingslovi also states that it was illigeal to build a warship without permission, and if you did, the kings men would come and smash it. So you better have a good reason to build one, and raiding was probably not a good one...

And on a side note. Just because many people defended themself from Harald when he united Norway, that doesn`t automaticly mean that they were vikings, a viking is a raider.

[Nidhogg]

Viking attacks did not end until the Battle of Stamford Bridge 1066 AD.

no shit!

astly, 'vikings did not fight with axes', lol, are you crazy? How much archeological avidence do you think you are ignoring here? The axe was second only to the sword in the vikings armoury,

k, sorry, my bad.. I could have said more on that.
I am fully aware that vikings had axes in their armoury, I would just seem so cheesy to have an own troop class named "viking axemen", when swords were the most common weapon. But hey... if thats what you want.

I kinda agree with CrackedAxe here. I'm not much of an expert about viking age, but I think half of your statements are wrong.

You think... feel free to expand on that.

[Meneldil]

- If you are going to focus on the vikings, why are you including a map over all of Europe? The Areas the Vikings managed to establish themself for short periods were mainly the British isles, France, and down in East Europe. To include the south Europe and the middle East would be pointless, the conflicts with the vikings would be mere buzzing in northern Europe. And Norway would certainly not be very strong. First of, they did not have an imperialistic foreign policy, Norway was not involved in any wars with any foreign nations, and the population was low.

Vikings raided about every part of europe, including Italy, modern Russia and some part of the Byzantine empire, so yeah, your statement is pointless.
Who cares about either Norway was strong or not strong or if it was involved in many wars or not ? I don't really understand your point.

- Why does the game start in the year of 900? The Viking attacks started at full a 100 years earlier(even though attacks can be traced all the way back to 500), by the year 900, a city like Paris had been burned like 3 times. And by this time the Vikings had looted out most of the gold they could find on all of Ireland, including digging ut most of the graveyards when all the all the churchgold was taken. Where is the logic in starting the game at 900 if the Vikings are the focus? Most of the bloodbaths in England, Ireland and France was over at the year 900, and they had lost control over Ireland.

As I said, we aren't focusing on the Vikings. I didn't really agree with the name of the mod (I think An mil total war would have been better). Starting in 900 means that we would have been able to have the Normans in. Since they created some of the wealthiest and most powerful christian kingdoms c. 1000AD, they are revelant to the period.

-Quick notes.. Vikings did not fight with axes.
Trells did not fight either.

They did. Axes were probably used as much (if no more) as swords. Swords were expensive, and long to be produced, while an axe was an effective and cheaper weapons.

As you can see, more than half of your statements are meaningless. Would you have bothered to read the forum or even the whole thread, we could have avoided the 'no shit!' and other crap like that.

[Nidhogg]

Vikings raided about every part of europe, including Italy, modern Russia and some part of the Byzantine empire, so yeah, your statement is pointless.

So .. yeah.. my statement is pointless?
let me quote myself:

The Areas the Vikings managed to establish themself for short periods were mainly the British isles, France, and down in East Europe.

Where did I say the vikings didn`t raid south Europe... My point is that, as the Vikings didn`t manage to manifest themself south of the Kiev area and North France. It would be more apropriate to include Northern Europe. Take a map of Europe and cut it around the Alps. The total war engine is best for conquest, not spending 8 turns to sail from brittain to Italy, Raid, spend 8 turns back.

Who cares about either Norway was strong or not strong or if it was involved in many wars or not ? I don't really understand your point.

Dunno.. who really cares. Some of the initial point of my post was that the faction of Norway should not have any viking warriors. And you got like five pages about the hungarians and the bulgarians, so why wouldn`t you care.

As I said, we aren't focusing on the Vikings. I didn't really agree with the name of the mod (I think An mil total war would have been better). Starting in 900 means that we would have been able to have the Normans in. Since they created some of the wealthiest and most powerful christian kingdoms c. 1000AD, they are revelant to the period.

yes, I read you first reply.

They did. Axes were probably used as much (if no more) as swords.

Probably.. you are using the word "probably", this means you are guessing. You said a couple of posts up that you weren`t an expert on the viking age.

Would you have bothered to read the forum or even the whole thread, we could have avoided the 'no shit!' and other crap like that.

How?

[Meneldil]

Where did I say the vikings didn`t raid south Europe... My point is that, as the Vikings didn`t manage to manifest themself south of the Kiev area and North France. It would be more apropriate to include Northern Europe. Take a map of Europe and cut it around the Alps. The total war engine is best for conquest, not spending 8 turns to sail from brittain to Italy, Raid, spend 8 turns back.

Just look at the last map we planned to have, northern europe is included. We even cut northern africa to allow viking factions to raid karelia.
Btw, we edited ship movement. Ships would have travelled way faster (we were planning to make the trip from norway to normandy only one turn long).

Dunno.. who really cares. Some of the initial point of my post was that the faction of Norway should not have any viking warriors. And you got like five pages about the hungarians and the bulgarians, so why wouldn`t you care.

You were kinda assuming that the Norway shouldn't conquer or fight with anyone. And this is a thing we do not really care about (except for our own historical knowledge).

Probably.. you are using the word "probably", this means you are guessing. You said a couple of posts up that you weren`t an expert on the viking age.

Will I be an expert if I don't use the word "probably" ? Are you an expert cause you don't use it ? Actually, I'm proba -oups-, I'm sure none knows for 100% how people fought back in 911 (well, if you do, you must be the greatest expert ever ).

How?

You would have understood why the start date was c. 900, why we were planning to have a map of whole europa and a few other things aswell.

I'm probably not going to answer anymore. Ygnvar might find some time to check this thread and explain a few other things. I'm now working on my own mod, which will hopefully not freeze like this one (though if Ygnvar find some skinners, I'll gladly help him again)

[CrackedAxe]

Nidhogg, I don't mean to be insulting, but can you PLEASE read and research your subject a little (maybe a LOT!) better before you go around refuting other peoples ideas.

[Oswald]

Hmm..Seems to recall that Sicily was a Viking kingdom for quite some time..

[edyzmedieval]

This thing still on? Cuz it seems a very good idea.

[Helgi]

Hmm..Seems to recall that Sicily was a Viking kingdom for quite some time..

A Norman Kingdom under Robert Guisgard, Sicily fell to the Normans as did Lower Italy. I forget the Battle, but the Pope threw what he could against Guisgard and his men, and the Pope lost and yet won at the same time. Guisgard in the return for land (Sicily and I think some of lower Italy) they would serve the Pope in times of need. Mind you, this happened a couple years after Hastings, Guisgard wanted land as well as did William the Lucky Basterd. Normandy was a Viking Kingdom as well, Hrolf gained it from the French a couple generations earlier.

[Pantsalot]

& as well the Vikings sieged Byzantine & wanted a very high ransom which
they got in a few days siege
lol it was at the time when byzantine was a great empire

I really like the idea of this (maybe just because my ancestors r vikings)
but the thing is that the makers would either have to shorten the entire map
to fit all of europe, most of Russia, a bit of North Africa & North-East corner
of America which is quite a'lot

[KonstantinosXI]

Th vikings won a battle against the byzantines at Dyrrachium, but the war has been won by Emperor Alexius I, not by Robert Giusgard

[Pantsalot]

lol why r we talking about the viking history
when this mod is obviously dead

[Helgi]

Th vikings won a battle against the byzantines at Dyrrachium, but the war has been won by Emperor Alexius I, not by Robert Giusgard

Robert Guiscard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search

Coin of Robert's.


Robert Guiscard (from Latin Viscardus and Old French Viscart, often rendered the Resourceful, the Cunning, the Wily, or the Fox—most closely related to the archaism wiseacre) (c.1015 – 1085) was the most remarkable of the Norman adventurers who conquered Southern Italy and Sicily. He was count (1057-1059) and then duke (1059-1085) of Apulia and Calabria after his brother Humphrey's death.
Contents

[hide]

• <LI class=toclevel-1>1 Background <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Early years <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Rule
  • <LI class=toclevel-2>3.1 Subjection of Calabria <LI class=toclevel-2>3.2 Sicilian campaigns
  • 3.3 Against the Greeks
  <LI class=toclevel-1>4 References
• 5 External links

//
[edit]

Background

From 999 to 1042 the Normans were pure mercenaries, serving either Greeks or Lombards. Then Sergius IV of Naples, by installing the leader Rainulf Drengot in the fortress of Aversa in 1029, gave them their first base, allowing them to begin an organized conquest of the land.
In 1035 there arrived William Iron-Arm and Drogo, the two eldest sons of Tancred of Hauteville, a petty noble of the Cotentin in Normandy. The two joined in the organized attempt to wrest Apulia from the Greeks, who by 1040 had lost most of that province. In 1042 Melfi was chosen as the Norman capital, and in September of that year the Normans elected as their count William Iron-Arm, who was succeeded in turn by his brothers Drogo, Comes Normannorum totius Apuliae e Calabriae, and Humphrey, who arrived about 1044.
[edit]

Early years

The year 1047 saw the arrival of Robert, the sixth son of Tancred of Hauteville and eldest by his second wife Fressenda. According to the Byzantine historian Anna Comnena, he had left Normandy with only five mounted riders, and thirty followers on foot, and, upon arriving in Langobardia, he became the chief of a roving robber-band. Anna Comnena also leaves a physical description of Robert Guiscard:
This Robert was Norman by descent, of minor origin, in temper tyrannical, in mind most cunning, brave in action, very clever in attacking the wealth and substance of magnates, most obstinate in achievement, for he did not allow any obstacle to prevent his executing his desire. His stature was so lofty that he surpassed even the tallest, his complexion was ruddy, his hair flaxen, his shoulders were broad, his eyes all but emitted sparks of fire, and in frame he was well-built ... this man's cry it is said to have put thousands to flight. Thus equipped by fortune, physique and character, he was naturally indomitable, and subordinate to no one in the world. Lands were scarce in Apulia at the time and the roving Robert could not expect any grant from Drogo, then reigning, for Humphrey had just received his own county of Lavello. Robert soon joined Prince Pandulf IV of Capua in his ceaseless wars with Prince Guaimar IV of Salerno (1048). The next year, however, Robert left Pandulf, over Pandulf's reneging on a promise of a castle and a daughter's hand, according to Amatus of Montecassino. Robert returned to his brother Drogo and asked for a fief again. This time, Drogo, who had just finished campaigning in Calabria, gave Robert command of the fortress of Scribla. It was, however, a dead-end, and Robert moved to the castle of San Marco Argentano, after which he later named the first Norman castle in Sicily: San Marco d'Alunzio, at the site of ancient Aluntium. It was during his time in Calabria, that Robert married his first wife, Alberada of Buonalbergo, the aunt of Lord Girard of Buonalbergo.
Guiscard soon rose to distinction. The Lombards turned against their erstwhile allies and Pope Leo IX determined to expel the Norman freebooters. The army which he led towards Apulia in 1053 was, however, overthrown at the Battle of Civitate sul Fortore by the Normans, united under Humphrey, who commanded the centre against the Swabians. Count Richard of Aversa, who commanded the right van, early put the Lombards in flight and chased them down before returning to help rout the Swabians. Guiscard had come all the way from Calabria to command the left. His troops were in reserve until, seeing Humphrey's forces ineffectually charging the pope's centre, he called up his father-in-law's reinforcements and joined the fray, distinguishing himself personally, even being dismounted and remounting again three separate times according to William of Apulia. In 1057, Robert, vindicated by his actions at Civitate, succeeded Humphrey, over his elder half-brother Geoffrey, as count of Apulia and, in company with Roger, his youngest brother, carried on the conquest of Apulia and Calabria, while Richard conquered the principality of Capua.
[edit]

Rule

Soon after his succession, probably in 1058, Robert separated from his wife Alberada because they were related within the prohibited degrees to marry Sichelgaita, the daughter of Gisulf II of Salerno, Guaimar's successor. In turn for giving him his sister's hand, Gisulf demanded of Robert that he destroy two castles of his brother William, count of the Principate, which had encroached on Gisulf's territory.
The Papacy, foreseeing the breach with the Holy Roman Emperor (the Investiture Controversy), then resolved to recognize the Normans and secure them as allies. Therefore at the Council of Melfi, on 23 August 1059, Pope Nicholas II invested Robert as duke of Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily, and Richard of Aversa as prince of Capua. Guiscard, now "by the Grace of God and St Peter duke of Apulia and Calabria and, if either aid me, future lord of Sicily", agreed to hold his titles and lands by annual rent of the Holy See and to maintain its cause. In the next twenty years he made an amazing series of conquests, winning his Sicilian dukeship.
[edit]

Subjection of Calabria

At the time of the opening of the Melfitan council in June, Robert had been leading an army in Calabria, the first strong attempt to subjugate that very Greek province since the Iron-Arm's campaigns with Guaimar. After attending the synod for his investiture, he returned to Calabria, where his army was besieging Cariati. After Robert's arrival, Cariati submitted and, before winter was out, Rossano and Gerace also. Only Reggio was left in Greek hands when Robert returned to Apulia. In Apulia, he worked to remove the Byzantine garrisons from Taranto and Brindisi, before, largely in preparation for his planned Sicilian expedition, he returned again to Calabria, where Roger was waiting with siege engines.
The fall of Reggio, after a long and arduous siege, and the subsequent capitulation of Scilla, an island citadel to which the Reggian garrison had fled, opened up the way to Sicily. Roger first led a tiny force to attack Messina but was repulsed easily by the Saracen garrison. The large invading force which could have been expected did not materialise, for Robert was recalled by a new Byzantine army, sent by Constantine X, ravaging Apulia. In January 1061, Melfi itself was under siege and Roger too was recalled. But the full weight of Robert's forces forced the Greeks to retreat and by May Apulia was calm.
[edit]

Sicilian campaigns

Invading Sicily with Roger, the brothers captured Messina (1061) with comparable ease: Roger's men landed unsighted during the night and surprised the Saracen army in the morning. The Guiscard's troops landed unopposed and found Messina abandoned. Robert immediately fortified Messina and allied himself with Ibn at-Timnah, one of the rival emirs of Sicily, against Ibn al-Hawas, another emir. The armies of Robert, his brother, and his Moslem friend marched into central Sicily by way of Rometta, which had remained loyal to al-Timnah. They passed through Frazzanò and the pianura di Maniace, where George Maniakes and the first Hautevilles distinguished themselves twenty-one years prior. Robert assaulted the town of Centuripe, but their resistance was strong, and he moved on. Paternò fell and he brought his army to Enna (then Castrogiovanni), a formidable fortress. The Saracens sallied forth and were defeated, but Enna itself did not fall. Robert turned back, leaving a fortress at San Marco d'Alunzio, named after his first stronghold in Calabria. He returned to Apulia with Sichelgaita for Christmas.
He returned in 1064, but bypassed Enna taking straight for Palermo. Sadly, his campsite was infested with tarantulas and had to be abandoned. The campaign was unsuccessful this time, though a later cmpaign, in 1072, saw Palermo fall and for the rest of Sicily it was only then a matter of time.
[edit]

Against the Greeks

Bari was reduced (April 1071), and the Greeks finally ousted from southern Italy. The territory of Salerno was already Robert's; in December 1076 he took the city, expelling its Lombard prince Gisulf, whose sister Sichelgaita he had married. The Norman attacks on Benevento, a papal fief, alarmed and angered Gregory VII, but pressed hard by the emperor, Henry IV, he turned again to the Normans, and at Ceprano (June 1080) reinvested Robert, securing him also in the southern Abruzzi, but reserving Salerno.
Guiscard's last enterprise was his attack on the Greek Empire, a rallying ground for his rebel vassals. He contemplated seizing the throne of the Basileus and took up the cause of Michael VII, who had been deposed in 1078 and to whose son his daughter had been betrothed. He sailed with 16,000 men against the empire in May 1081, and by February 1082 had occupied Corfu and Durazzo, defeating the Emperor Alexius in fornt of the latter (Battle of Dyrrhachium, October 1081). He was, however, recalled to the aid of Gregory VII, besieged in Castel Sant'Angelo by Henry IV (June 1083).
Marching north with 36,000 men he entered Rome and forced Henry to retire, but an émeute of the citizens led to a three days' sack of the city (May 1084), after which Guiscard escorted the pope to Rome. His son Bohemund, for a time master of Thessaly, had now lost the Greek conquests. Robert, returning to restore them, occupied Corfu and Kephalonia, but died of fever in the latter on July 15 1085, in his 70th year. He was buried in S. Trinità at Venosa.
Guiscard was succeeded by Roger Borsa, his son by Sichelgaita; Bohemund, his son by an earlier Norman wife Alberada, being set aside. At his death Robert was duke of Apulia and Calabria, prince of Salerno and suzerain of Sicily. His successes had been due not only to his great qualities but to the "entente" with the Papal See. He created and enforced a strong ducal power which, however, was met by many baronial revolts, one being in 1078, when he demanded from the Apulian vassals an "aid" on the betrothal of his daughter. In conquering such wide territories he had little time to organize them internally. In the history of the Norman kingdom of Italy Guiscard remains essentially the hero and founder, as his nephew Roger II is the statesman and organizer.

[Helgi]

lol why r we talking about the viking history
when this mod is obviously dead

Because......Why Not, it's something to do

[Pantsalot]

lol wasting our life on talking about this
when we're old men then we'll probaly
regret doing this

let's have a little war & turn this into








WHO WILL CHALLANGE MY HORDE!!!