Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 178

Thread: Factions

  1. #31
    Arbeit macht fleisch Member ScionTheWorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norwegen
    Posts
    778

    Default Re: Factions

    so wouldn't it work to call Wesseaxnes or whoever who was going to become kingdom of englisc, kingdom of englisc? I think it's reasonable.

  2. #32

    Default Re: Factions

    It depends on the start date. Has a date been finalized?

  3. #33
    Arbeit macht fleisch Member ScionTheWorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norwegen
    Posts
    778

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by NeonGod
    It depends on the start date. Has a date been finalized?
    it was until bopa started bitchin

  4. #34

    Default Re: Factions

    Those Magyars...always sticking their noses into other people's business...

    Maybe second-guessing isn't a good policy. Stick with what worked before, and we'll avoid all of this fuss.

  5. #35
    Bopa Member Incongruous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    H.M.S Default
    Posts
    2,647

    Default Re: Factions

    In 880 ad is the only way I can see this working, and since this is a MOD focussed on the Vikings, why start it before the most important period of their history when the Danelaw.

    843 was good because of the Frankish kingdoms, but it completely ignored the more important Viking ones.

    Sig by Durango

    Now that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.
    -Oscar Wilde

  6. #36
    Arbeit macht fleisch Member ScionTheWorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norwegen
    Posts
    778

    Default Re: Factions

    Okay I see some positive sides with it, also that 3-4 turns would be more appropriate. Can't the pro-843 people justify this a little more? And would 880 change included factions, or at least included units and tech trees?

  7. #37
    Dungalloigh Brehonda Member Ranika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,416

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Spongly
    Surely the "scots" in this period would be "Fir nAlban".
    This is a political unit; simply 'Men of Alba'. It is a perfectly workable name, and totally valid, but I recommended Sgaothaich based on that it's what individuals would've called themselves. It does not literally mean 'scotsmen', it's actually a kind of 'clan' from which Dal Riadans originally came, and was a colloquial name of the Gaels in Argyll, and then the people of the Scottish-Gaelic kingdom; it largely depends on naming concensus, and probably period as well. If the period begins in 843, I wouldn't use Fir nAlban, but perhaps Riatadan or Fir hRiata; however, Sgaothaich would be just as valid then as well, because it'd still be a casual name. However, in either case, just calling the Irish 'Eire' may be a bit erroneous; not saying to name it after one of the kingdoms, if you wish to represent all of the Irish, but something more like 'Aicme nEireann/Eireannaicme' (Race of the Irish; the Irish Race) would be more appropriate, or Dáil nEireann (the 'Portion' {kingdom or land} of the Irish).
    Ní dheachaigh fial ariamh go hIfreann.


  8. #38
    Bopa Member Incongruous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    H.M.S Default
    Posts
    2,647

    Default Re: Factions

    I doubt putting the date from 843 to 880 would change much, and all of the Saxon units have been chosen from the 880's.

    Sig by Durango

    Now that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.
    -Oscar Wilde

  9. #39
    dictator by the people Member caesar44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    the holy(?) land
    Posts
    1,207

    Smile Re: Factions

    880 ?
    no !!!
    783 (or 773 or 779)?
    yes !!!
    why ?
    it was the beginning of the Viking invasions
    "The essence of philosophy is to ask the eternal question that has no answer" (Aristotel) . "Yes !!!" (me) .

    "Its time we stop worrying, and get angry you know? But not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds." (Tupac Amaru Shakur)

  10. #40
    is not a senior Member Meneldil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    3,074

    Default Re : Factions

    Starting in 880 would mean no Lotharingia (which was the Emperor's Kingdom), the necessity to create an Italian Kingdom (ruling all northern Italy) and possibly a Burgundian and a Polish one. In 880, a lot of provinces that were under Frankish rule became independant. Basicaly, you would have to give a lot of provinces to the rebels, and I don't think it's a great idea ^^.

    And England was still not united in 880 I think, since there was still the Kingdom of Northumbria, East Anglia, York, Strachtylde, Wessex and Five Burgs (sp ?).
    I think it would be better to start out in 843 and to make the Englisc the Kingdom that conquered England latter on (Mercia ? Wessex ?)

    On the other hand, starting out in 880 would also mean a more historical Russia, since the Kievan Rus Principalty did not exist before 860/870.
    In 843, Kiev was still a Khazarian city, and the Varangian owned a few cities like Novgorod and Starya Ladoga (sp?).

    Btw, were Magyars living in Hungary in 843 ? From all the map I've seen , they were still in modern days Ukrainia and Moldavia, and settled in Hungary only around 900. That's another cons of starting in 843 (at this time, the inhabitants of Hungary were still the Avars I think)
    Last edited by Meneldil; 07-30-2005 at 11:44.

  11. #41
    Bopa Member Incongruous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    H.M.S Default
    Posts
    2,647

    Default Re: Factions

    You need to brush up on your history.

    By 880 the only Anglo-Saxon Kingdom left was Wessex, which was known by then as Alfred's Kingdom of the Englisc (Englisc pronaounced the same way as English). Who cares about Lotharangia, the date needs to be changed, since the Danelaw was only brount about in 879-880!

    As for the Magyars, we were still roaming around what is now Western Russia and the Ukraine, ready to smash Europe, yeeesss!

    Sig by Durango

    Now that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.
    -Oscar Wilde

  12. #42
    is not a senior Member Meneldil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    3,074

    Default Re : Factions

    Quite frankly, I'm not that good at britain history, and my sources were mainly this map and this one

  13. #43
    Arbeit macht fleisch Member ScionTheWorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norwegen
    Posts
    778

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
    You need to brush up on your history.

    By 880 the only Anglo-Saxon Kingdom left was Wessex, which was known by then as Alfred's Kingdom of the Englisc (Englisc pronaounced the same way as English). Who cares about Lotharangia, the date needs to be changed, since the Danelaw was only brount about in 879-880!

    As for the Magyars, we were still roaming around what is now Western Russia and the Ukraine, ready to smash Europe, yeeesss!
    I don't really see the need for putting the starting date at 880. Kingdom of englisc will start with wessex, and probably conquer what is going to be this kingdom at 880.
    And what's the friggin deal with danelaw anyway? Can't denmark, if he wants, just conquer what is going to be danelaw in the game? I don't think these things is enough to change it. and what's the deal with excluding Lotharangia? exclude danlaw for gods sake

  14. #44
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Factions

    843 AD: Because in 793 the viking actions were mostly raids, and very few important conquests. Earlier than 843 will mean Normandy is impossible. Normandy was founded in 911 AD, so before 843 would make it a little too unrealistic to include them. But if we move as far as to 911 AD, most viking conquest have already happened, and half the viking age is over. There are also many other changes after 843 AD. Therefore, 843 AD is the best compromise IMO. The other dates mean one or more of the most interesting parts of the mod have to be removed.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  15. #45
    Bopa Member Incongruous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    H.M.S Default
    Posts
    2,647

    Default Re: Factions

    That suck from an historical point of view. I thought this MOD was meant to be centred on the Vikings, yet you want to ignore the Danelaw, WTF dudes!
    Its a seriuos mistake in my mind, 880 would be the best!

    Sig by Durango

    Now that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.
    -Oscar Wilde

  16. #46

    Default Re: Factions

    The Danelaw could be just as easily established by the player. It's really not a big deal.

  17. #47
    Arbeit macht fleisch Member ScionTheWorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norwegen
    Posts
    778

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
    That suck from an historical point of view. I thought this MOD was meant to be centred on the Vikings, yet you want to ignore the Danelaw, WTF dudes!
    Its a seriuos mistake in my mind, 880 would be the best!
    the only reasons for changing the starting date is becase of ownership to four-five provinces, and nothing else. on the other hand, if we change it, it would exclude one faction. so in 843 the saxons will be harder to play as, since they have less land and more competition with their neighbours. denmark won't have this one settlement in britain. will this be devestating?
    Last edited by ScionTheWorm; 08-01-2005 at 07:53. Reason: must add somethng

  18. #48
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
    That suck from an historical point of view. I thought this MOD was meant to be centred on the Vikings, yet you want to ignore the Danelaw, WTF dudes!
    Its a seriuos mistake in my mind, 880 would be the best!
    The Danelaw was for a period controlled by the same king who controlled Denmark. Also, the bounds between Danelaw and Denmark were strong, meaning that Danelaw is, with the R:TW technology at hand, best represented by Denmark conquering much of the British Isles.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  19. #49
    Member Member Shaun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    282

    Default Re: Factions

    can we see a map please?

  20. #50
    Bopa Member Incongruous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    H.M.S Default
    Posts
    2,647

    Default Re: Factions

    Hmph! Oh well.

    Sig by Durango

    Now that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.
    -Oscar Wilde

  21. #51

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by ScionTheWorm
    I don't really see the need for putting the starting date at 880. Kingdom of englisc will start with wessex, and probably conquer what is going to be this kingdom at 880.
    The problem being that there are other Englisc kingdoms in 843 -

    Wessex
    Essex
    Sussex
    Kent
    Anglia
    Mercia
    Lindsey
    Northumbria

    It was hardly a foregone conclusion that only Wessex would hold out - Mercia was probably the most powerful kingdom in this period, and Northumbria, while in a period of anarchy, was still a force to be reckoned with. You'd really have to have them all as factions to have any real semblance of history.

    The advantage of 880 is that you only need one Englisc faction, and maybe a few rebels scattered around.

  22. #52
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Factions

    You can still call wessex the Englisc in 843 AD IMO. The Mercians can, in fact, be strong than wessex from start, by giving mercian rebels more men than wessex starts out with. That's the method we'll use for other important factions of the time that can't be represented with playable factions, but were important at the start of the mod but lost most of it's power shortly after 843 AD, for example Great Moravia. Therefore, I see no reason why we should change what we've planned so far.

    Ps: added some longer faction descriptions for Normans and Scots.
    Last edited by Rodion Romanovich; 08-05-2005 at 13:59.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  23. #53
    Bopa Member Incongruous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    H.M.S Default
    Posts
    2,647

    Default Re: Factions

    This is what I have been trying to get at, in 843 there were no Viking sttlements in England, meaning that all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms still existed, and it seemed that Mercia would become the high kingdom of England. The only reason it didn't was because of the massive Viking incersions which resulted in the creation of the Danelaw.Otherwise the kings of Wessex would be subjects to the kings of Mercia. So if we start in 843 we should probably have Mercia as a faction, not Wessex.
    Sorry guys but this date just really rips up the history, not just from an English and Viking point of view, I mean what about Normandy? 843 seems to far fetched to include this faction. But its not up to me

    Sig by Durango

    Now that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.
    -Oscar Wilde

  24. #54

    Default Re: Factions

    I must say that I'd like the starting date as early as possible, because really, if all the viking kingdoms/duchies are established when the game starts, what's left for the player to do?

  25. #55
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaun
    can we see a map please?
    There might be some screenshots of the map in the Campaign map thread soon, but there aren't any ready yet.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  26. #56

    Default Re: Factions

    What an awesome lookin mod!

    If the start date is around 700 - 900, I'm afraid there's no "Svea Rike". Sweden was formed sometime during the 12-th and 13-th century, when the three lands of West- and East Gotaland united with Svealand. Historically speaking, it would be more correct to speak of tribes from Göta- and Svealand; "Gautiod and Svitjod" = roughly translated into "Goths and Swedes".

    Either way, it should be "Svea Rike" instead of "Svea Riket".

  27. #57

    Default Re: Factions

    Someone has been reading too much Jan Guillou

    There are historic records (Wulfstans travels more exactly) speaking of a Sweden reaching as far as Blekinge by the 800s. Furher more it's very much accepted that at least Olof Skötkonung ruled both Götaland and Svealand during the 1000s, how? because he split the kingdom between himself and his son Anund after the Swedes drew him out for being a bit too chirstian IIRC.
    Things such as placenames and the general lack of info regarding a Geat kingdom (Beowulf being set in the 500s) in sources speak for an even earlier union. Of course when the Swedish state emerged depends on what you count as a state, but there were people who called themselves kings of Sweden and thus there was a kingdom of Sweden-Svea Rike. How far south it reached and to what extent those regions were controlled is and will for a long while, if not forever, remain a matter of debate.
    Last edited by Jarlabanke; 08-18-2005 at 22:04.

  28. #58
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Factions

    @GBG: Yes, Jan Guillou speaks of the creation of modern Sweden, defining it as the last time when the smaller kingdoms in the area united after having been split up. The unity was less complete earlier, but it's really only a matter of definitions. The name Svea rike implies that the name itself probably came from a period earlier than that mentioned in his novels, because why would gotar tribes name their kingdom after a rival tribe? That makes it sensible to think that the name Svea rike actually appeared during this very period or even earlier, when the Sviar were the most foreignly active of the tribes. That this "state" lacked administration of the type introduced by Birger Jarl and that the direct control over the territory was probably limited, is a good reason for calling these early kingdoms something else than a "state". It's very likely that there were several largely independent jarls in the area, acting independently in terms of raids and so on. We think the best abstraction to all this is to let the Swedish faction from start own only a few provinces in the area around Birka, and have very strong rebels in most of the remaining provinces.

    BTW - Jan Guillou is way off when it comes to historical accuracy - there was no such thing as mounted crossbowmen in Sweden at the time, nor is it likely the Swedish won against the Danish due to longbows, it's more likely the battle of Gestilren was won by snow and terrain, and spearmen.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  29. #59

    Default Re: Factions

    It all comes down to Jan guillou being a good journalist, a mediocre writer but not anything close to a historian.

  30. #60

    Default Re: Factions

    Were did I write anything about Jan Guillou?

    Look, I'm not a follower of the so called "västgötaskolan" ( who in my opinion though have the best historical claims ), and the still infected debate about the whereabouts of the so called "birth of Sweden". I just think it's pretty silly to believe that old propaganda tales about ancient kings in Uppsala, and to follow the lineage of vikings to modern Sweden. There were no such connections. The old patriotic "Stockholm/Uppsala-followers", and their holy graal Birka, is relying to much on work of fiction ( Beowulf ) and propaganda scripts such as Adam of Bremen etc. The idea of an ancient "Svea Rike" that engulfed much of modern day Sweden and conquered foreign land is purely fictional.

    I'm not entirely sure, but I seem to recall that the term "Svea Rike" has not been found in historical sources before the [Swedish] middle ages?

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO