Factions

[ScionTheWorm]

https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9428/icondanish5xo.png

DAN MARK


The first significant appearance of Danish tribes took place already in 113 BC, when the Cimbri and Teutones migrated south and inflicted several defeats on both the romans and their allies, in among others the Battle of Arausio, where the romans lost around 100,000 men. The Danish tribes also played a significant role in the over 600 years long battle of Britain. At the time of the fall of Rome, the fierce jutes, angli and saxons, all originating from modern Denmark or nearby areas, were the most successful settlers and conquerors on the island, and established the great kingdom of Englisc.

Ironically, this kingdom is the main target of the Danish viking raids and conquests around 843 AD. Having resisted the invasion attempts of Charlemagne, the Danes have at this time a great confidence in military matters and, now that the Frankish empire has been divided and in internal fighting, their southern front is clear and they can turn their attention elsewhere.

The Danish armies, like most viking armies, consist mainly of infantry, including heavily armored huskarles, infamous for their ferocity in combat. Their position far to the south eventually also allowed their armies to be influenced by the Frankish type of warfare, and at the end of this period led to the Danes implementing a better cavalry force than any of the other viking factions - however, these "knights" are by no means comparable to those of France or the Holy roman empire.

Historically, the Danes among other things established a great kingdom in Britain known as "Danelagen" (the Danelaw), which at it's peak covered much of Britain and even threatened to destroy the kingdom of Englisc. Danelagen was sometimes independent from Denmark, but at one time the king of Denmark came to rule over both Denmark and the Danelaw at the same time. The Norwegians begun their raids and conquests at about the same time, and due to the positions of the two nations, there was also an internal competition between Danes and Norwegians. Whereas the Norwegians had superior sailors, the Danes could muster a large land army and were most successful in Britain. Nevertheless, at the later phase of the period the Norwegians became more dominant - it was Norwegians that founded Normandy, and it was a Norwegian - Harald Hårdråde, that came to compete for the total control over Britain with William the Conqueror and king Harold of the Englisc in 1066 AD.




https://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6390/iconnorwegian2kw.png

NORDMANNALAND

https://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8732/sc28fm.jpg
https://img271.imageshack.us/img271/5581/vikingband3ot.jpg
https://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6664/post46fg.png

The first significant appearance of Norwegians comes from the roman era. It's also possible that the phoenicians that travelled to Britain also reached Norway long before the roman period. However, we know for sure that the Norwegians carried out trade with the romans, supplying them with among other things salt fish. The sea became the niche of the Norwegians early. Only by learning how to make excellent ships could the Norwegians keep up contacts with the south, and thanks to their impressive ships in combination with this new technology, the Norwegians were by 843 AD strong enough to become successful raiders and conquerors. However, they shared their area of interest with the Danes, and at the beginning of the period, Norway was divided between several petty kingdoms with internal rivalry.

They had to take advantage of their superior sailing skills and most early Norwegian raids were directed at areas the Danes couldn't, or didn't want to, reach. Ireland and the northern parts of Britain, as well as later Iceland and Newfoundland, were subject to Norwegian raids while the Danes targeted the Englisc in southern Britain. However, in 872 AD, Harald Hárfagri (Harald Fairhair) united many of the Norwegian petty kingdoms, thus starting a Norwegian age of gold. In 911 AD, a Norwegian siege of Paris forced the French king to give Normandy and a large tribute to Gångerolf (Hrolf the Ganger), and Norwegian vikings also established a strong colony at Dubh Linn (Dublin) and weren't thrown out of Ireland until they were defeated in the battle of Clontarf in 1014 AD - where they initially performed well despite being outnumbered. After a period of several influential kings including Sweyn Tveskegg (Sweyn Forkbeard) and Knud den Store (Canute the Great), a last Norwegian conquest attempt was made by Harald Hårdråde in 1066 AD. In the battle of Stamford bridge, he was defeated by king Harold of the Englisc in his attempt to conquer Britain, but although failing to win the battle, Harald inflicted so many casualties on Harold that William the Conqueror was able to win at Hastings shortly afterwards. In the end, Britain came partly under Norwegian control anyway - the Normans were as much Norwegians as they were franks.

During the viking age, the Norwegian army consisted predominantly of infantry armed with axes and spears. The little cavalry that was used was mostly for scouting, and horses were more commonly used as transportation TO battles than for actual usage IN battle. Nevertheless, the powerful infantry of the Norwegian viking age army granted them a superiority over many of their opponents - until in the later parts of the period when most armies developed a better cavalry.





https://img285.imageshack.us/img285/1727/iconswedish3sn.png

SVEA RIKET



The first significant appearance of Sweden in world history was perhaps the semi-legendary colonization of the east Baltic area, predominantly taking place at Novgorod, which led to the establishment of the first Russian dynasty. Known as the Rus, or "Gaardariki", those settlers would later around Kiev form a strong empire which grew strong enough to challenge both the Byzantine empire and the Khazars, as well as several other smaller kingdoms in the area.

Sweden itself remained isolated and divided for a much longer period. Apparently, the forests of Småland and Värmland were more effective than the sea at isolating the Swedish from the empires and kingdoms further south. Sweden remained divided between three major tribes - the Sviar, the Västgotar, and the Ostgotar for a long time. During the viking age, the Sviar formed the most significant tribe, and took part in both raiding, colonization and trade, predominantly in the Baltic area as the Baltic area was the only sea they had easy access to while the gotar tribes blocked southern Sweden. The gotar initially only held a very short part of coastline to the west, and their internal fighting was perhaps worse than to the north, and prevented the Swedish from establishing any bases as starting positions for viking raids to the west.

Many of the Sviar, as well as many Norwegians, came to serve as mercenaries in the varangian guard in Constantinople. Sviar warriors also put Constantinople under siege at one time, granting them a huge tribute in exchange for liftin their siege of the city.

By the end of the viking age, the power balance in Sweden changed. The increasing strength of the gotar tribes eventually led to the gotar gaining the upper hand in the inernal fighting in Sweden, and after the viking age came to unite the three major tribes under Folkkungaätten. The increased importance of the gotar tribes depended on many things. First of all, they strengthened the control over their western coastline, granting them better contact with the south. Secondly, they had been forced to resist many Danish invasion attempts, and recieved experience in newer forms of warfare - including cavalry warfare. Thirdly, the Sviar were exhausted by their foreign wars.

During the viking age, the Swedish army consisted predominantly of infantry armed with axes and spears. The little cavalry that was used was mostly for scouting, and horses were more commonly used as transportation TO battles than for actual usage IN battle. Nevertheless, the powerful infantry of the Swedish viking age army granted them a superiority over many of their opponents - until in the later parts of the period when most armies developed a better cavalry.

Rus: According to the legend, the Rus dynasty at Novgorod, known as "Gaardariki", was founded by the Swedish viking Rurik in around 860 AD. Although Rurik was viking, most of the early Russian population was already slavic and finno-ugric. The dynasty steadily grew in power and extended their control to Kiev to the south, which started an age of gold which came to last until in 1230 AD, when the mongols overwhelmed Europe.

During this period, trade routes were established in the Black sea and the Kievan Rus probably carried out trade with both the Byzantine empire, the Khazars, and the Abbassid khaliphate. The Kievan Rus expansions eventually led to the fall of Khazar and the defeat of several other tribes settled east and west of Kiev. The Rus converted to Orthodox faith after their contacts with Constantinople during the missionary race between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

The Rus army eventually became a formidable combination of fierce viking infantry supported by traditional steppe cavalry - both lighter horse archers, and heavier cavalry sometimes armed with lance, sometimes with bow. The druzhina, the Rus leader's personal guard, was among the finest cavalry of it's time, and the boyars, the Rus aristocrats, formed a heavy cavalry force comparable to the western feudal knights - but often with greater mobility and an extra strength lying in their bows.

[ScionTheWorm]

https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1958/iconscots8qx.png

ALBA

https://img322.imageshack.us/img322/114/sc162tz.jpg http://img101.echo.cx/img101/3923/sc256wl.th.jpg (http://img101.echo.cx/my.php?image=sc256wl.jpg) http://img144.echo.cx/img144/8380/sc280qt.th.jpg (http://img144.echo.cx/my.php?image=sc280qt.jpg)
(These screenshots contain units for both Alba and Éire)

In 843 AD, the ruler of the Scottish kingdom Dal riada, Cinaed MacAilpin, laid claim to the Pictish kingdom of Caledonia, thereby uniting northern Britain into one kingdom - the kingdom of Alba. After a history of internal rivalry between Scots and Picts with neither gaining the upper hand, the viking raiders eventually weakened the Picts so much that Cinaed MacAilpin could claim the throne of Caledonia through bloodlines. The population in modern Scotland is a mix of these Caledonians of Celtic origin, and the Dal riadans of Gaelic origin. Because the ruling dynasty of Alba was Gaelic, the army of the kingdom of Alba consisted mostly of typical Gaelic troops, with limited Pictish influence.

The gaelic warfare is centered around light and medium spearmen and axemen, often armed with javelins, heavy throwing spears or darts thrown before charging. The use of cavalry and archers is limited, and as a result those troop types have suffered in quality compared to those of other factions. However, the Scots, unlike the Irish, came to implement more and better long-distance missile troops and at the end of the period get access to crossbowmen as well as Gaelo-British Arras, a heavy infantry influenced by both gaelic and British fighting styles.

The Kingdom of Alba eventually transformed into Scotland, and became further influenced by their neighbors to the south. Eventually, this led to the separation of Highlanders and Lowlanders, with the Highlanders keeping up some of the old traditions and fighting styles, whereas the Lowlanders became more like the other peoples in Britain. However, this development didn't take place until after the ending date of this mod, and the kingdom of Alba is therefore mostly gaelic in terms of culture and warfare.



https://img285.imageshack.us/img285/7787/iconirish6cw.png

ÈIRE


The Irish at this time use a mix of gaelic troops and at the end of the period more and more viking influenced troops - often as mercenaries. The main weakness of the Irish is their lack of missile troops and heavier cavalry

[ScionTheWorm]

NORMANDIE


The Duchy of Normandy, originally a part of France, was in 911 AD granted to the Norwegian viking Hrolf the Ganger as tribute after a several years long siege of Paris. The Duchy was formally controlled by the King of France, but in practise was an independent kingdom. The Normans could, to a greater extent than the Danes, incorporate into their infantry-based viking armies the flexibility in cavalry and missiles of their frankish neighbors. The late Norman armies were extremely flexible and it was for good reason they managed to conquer England from the Saxons in 1066 AD, even though Harald Hardråde of Norway unintentially helped them by weakening the Saxons considerably in the battle of Stamford bridge shortly before.

The battle of Hastings clearly shows the flexibility of the Norman armies. They used a wise balance between missiles, infantry and cavalry, and by constant missile barrage and fake charges, primarily from their Breton allies, forced the Saxons to break ranks so they could easily be overrun by the Norman knights. Eventually, the Saxons were so weakened that the Normans could launch a full-scale charge up the hill where the saxons were camping and defeat them.

Historically, the Norman armies also played important roles elsewhere: as rulers of England, as founders of the kingdom of Sicily (which was among the three most important European kingdoms in the 13th century) and as rulers of the later crusader kingdom. The Duchy of Normandy was separated from England in 1087 AD.

Hrolf the Ganger, the founder of Normandy, was according to the legend son of a Norwegian Jarl, and his cognomen, meaning "the walker", was attributed to him because he was so large that no horse could carry him.



HEILIGES RÖMISCHES REICH


After the death of Charlemagne's heir Louis the Pious, the Frankish empire was split up in four parts. The oldest son Lothar recieved the middle and southern parts of the empire. Pepin II recieved Aquitaine, but was under the authority of Charles the Bald, who recieved the rest of the westernmost territories - France. Finally, Louis or Louis the German as he soon became known as, recieved the easternmost part. After years of fighting, in 843 the Verdun treaty settled the borders, giving Lotharingia the most important and economically profitable provinces including Flanders and northern Italy, while Louis the German recieved the second most profitable lands, including many rapidly growing cities, and with great prospects of further expansion into the many smaller kingdoms to the east.

Historically, the Verdun treaty wasn't the end of the fighting. Lotharingia had the biggest problems - continual pressure from both west and east, as well as the rising Italian city states starting to claim independence - eliminated Lotharingia less than a century after the treaty. This left the eastern Frankish empire as the winners - with Lotharingia gone they now ruled the most economically strong, and most heavily populated, empire in Europe. Although the viking raids begun at about the same time, they caused more problems in France than for the eastern Frankish empire, and exaggerated the eastern Frankish military and economical superiority in the period. The effect was further reinforced by the fall of Great Moravia, which left the eastern front open for easier conquests.

It was for good reason that the eastern Frankish empire could take over the title "Holy roman emperor" given to Charlemagne by the pope in 800 AD, and it was for good reason that they experienced an age of gold that came to last for several centuries, until in the 12th and 13th centuries, when rivalry with the pope and the rise of France after a weakening period of feudalism changed the power balance in Europe.

Before that happened, however, the Holy roman empire begun to see itself as the natural followers of the Roman empire, something that could be seen in that they took over the Byzantine imperial eagle as their standard in battle. And truly, the well-coordinated and technologically advanced army of the Holy roman empire was perhaps an as fearsome sight as the roman army once was. With the Frankish heavy cavalry, the heavy disciplined ranks of footmen, and well-equipped missile troops in a balanced combination, they have both flexibility and strength and are not easily defeated.



FRANCE


After the death of Charlemagne's heir Louis the Pious, the Frankish empire was split up in four parts. The oldest son Lothar recieved the middle and southern parts of the empire. Pepin II recieved Aquitaine, but was under the authority of Charles the Bald, who recieved the rest of the westernmost territories - France. Finally, Louis or Louis the German as he soon became known as, recieved the easternmost part. After years of fighting, in 843 the Verdun treaty settled the borders, giving Lotharingia the most important and economically profitable provinces including Flanders and northern Italy, while Louis the German recieved the second most profitable lands, including many rapidly growing cities, and with great prospects of further expansion into the many smaller kingdoms to the east. France was left with little profitable land and in a far from strategic position surrounded by several potential and real enemies.

The French position is problematic - they lack control over the important key provinces of Normandy and Flanders, whose economical importance can't be underestimated. In fact, they have almost no access to the sea at all despite their position. Aquitaine isn't formally under complete French control, and the coastal provinces they do have in the Mediterranean sea can't compete with the rising Italian city states, let alone Constantinople or Jerusalem. The threat from the unfaithful to the west isn't huge, but neither is it unimportant. The buffer zones between France and Al-Andalus are thin. As long as Lotharingia controls both the economical metropols of northern Italy and central Europe, they have a strategical strength that could, if wanted, allow Lotharingia to conquer or at least severely damage the French. There's also the threat of a future united Britain, and there are also rumors of Norsemen raiding coasts mercilessly, sometimes also conquering large portions of even the strongest of kingdoms.

Historically, the French situation was vastly improved by the fall of Lotharingia, caused by wars with both France and the Holy roman empire and the Italian city states claiming independence. This was enough to allow the French to survive the vikings - although it cost them the important province of Normandy, as well as the later feudalism and rivalry with among others the Holy roman empire. Luckily enough, the Holy roman empire at the peak of it's importance chose to go south rather than west with it's armies, something that drained it's strength before it turned it's attention on France, that had by the time the Holy roman empire lost it's importance become a metropol for trade, and famous for it's universities and open intellectual climate, especially in Paris. In the 13th century the French managed to push back both English and Holy roman influence. The 14th and early 15th centuries saw some new problems with the hundred years war against Britain, but after the introduction of the best artillery in Europe the French could go on the offensive for many of the coming centuries.

Their army in this period is easily one of the best of it's time, with the same flexibility and strengths in most troops types that the Holy roman empire and Lotharingia possesses.



LOTHARINGIA


-

[ScionTheWorm]

ABBASID KHALIPHATE


In 744 the Umayyad dynasty had ruled the vast Muslim empire for almost a century. Lax Umayyad control had led to unrest in several regions, especially Iraq and Persia. The Abbasids was a family who gained wide popularity among the Muslims. There were many reasons. One important reason was that they claimed kinship to the Prophet through one of his younger uncles Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, unlike the Umayyads who claimed kinship through Umayya who was married to one of the Prophets daughters. Other two reasons, was that the Abbasids attacked the Umayyad secularity which garnered more support, and perhaps the main reason being that they appealed to non-Arab Muslims, known as mawali, who remained outside the kinship-based society of Arab culture and were at best second-class citizens within the Umayyad empire.

In the years 744-750 the Abbasids was in open rebellion against the Umayyads, lead by Ibrahim the Imam. They had as aforementioned, much support, especially from the eastern Persian province of Khorasan. The Abbasids made considerable success, although Ibrahim was captured and killed in 747. His brother Abdallah (better known as Abu al-'Abbas as-Saffah) took up the mantle of leadership and in 750 he crushed the Umayyads at the battle of Zab River, and became Caliph. In the next six years, the remaining Umayyads were hunted down and executed. In 756 all but one, were massacred at a dinner party, and the sole survivor Abd ar-Rahman fled to Iberia where he established the emirate of al-Andalus.

The Abbasids had received much support from the Persians, and now they had to reward them.
Abu al-'Abbas' successor, al-Mansur, moved the capital from Damascus to the new city of Baghdad and welcomed non-Arab Muslims to their court. While this helped integrate Arab and Persian cultures, it alienated many of their Arab supporters.
The orientation of Islam also changed. Under the Muslim expansion in the 7th century and the Umayyads Islam had been oriented towards the Mediterranean, but under the Abbasids, Islam got a more eastwards orientation.

Another issue, was the Sunni-Shia schism. Many Shia muslims had supported the Abbasids, due to their familial connection to Muhammad. However, once in power, the Abbasids embraced Sunni Islam and disavowed any support for Shi'a beliefs. That led to numerous conflicts, culminating in an uprising in Mecca in 786, followed by widespread bloodshed and the flight of many Shi'a to the Maghreb, where the survivors established the Idrisid kingdom.

The overthrow of the Umayyads and the establishment of al-Andalus as a seperate Muslim state outside the Muslim empire was the beginning of the end of Muslim unity. 50 years after the Umayyad overthrow, the Abbasids had lost control of the provinces west for Libya, and the Abbasids also faced challenges closer to home. The Byzantine Empire was fighting Abbasid rule in Syria and Anatolia, while former supporters had formed a seperate kingdom in Khorasan in Persia.

During this time, Abbasid armies were raised by provincial commanders, whose soldiers owed their loyalty to them, and not the Caliph. This caused the Abbasids some concern during the tumoultous times, as some commanders revolted and founded their own kingdoms. The caliph al-Ma'mun and his brother and successor al-Mu'tasim decided to create an army of their own, loyal to the Caliph and no one else. This army was mainly made up of Turks of slave origin, called Mamluks, as well as some Slavs and Berbers. This helped them more in quelling rebellions, but in the end the Mamluks ended up gaining more power which lead to much unrest in 10th century when Shi'te dynasties occupied parts of Iraq.

But Abbasid rule was not only unrest and wars. Under Harun al-Rashid and his succesors, a greate age og intellectual achievemant was fostered. Ancient Greek, Hindu and other pre-Islamic knowledge was translated into Arabic and stored in libraries, and this contributed to making, for example Aristotle known in Christian Europe. In addition the period saw the recovery of much of the Alexandrian mathematical, geometric and astronomical knowledge, such as that of Euclides and Claudius Ptolemy, and these recovered mathematical methods were later enhanced and developed by other Islamic scholars.

The Abbasid power declined in the 10th century and 11th centuries, especially with the arrival of the Seljuq Turks. The Abbasids remained as figureheads in Baghdad until Hulegu Khan and the Mongols sacked the city in 1258 and killed the caliph. The Abbasids still maintained a feeble show of authority, confined to religious matters, in Egypt under the Mamluks, but the dynasty finally disappeared with Motawakkil III, who was carried away as a prisoner to Constantinople by Selim I.

[ScionTheWorm]

MAGYARS


A Chinese proverb states:. "Even a journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step." It is very possible that the proto-Magyars wandered not a thousand miles but ten times that distance during the span of many centuries before arriving in their present homeland.

The Magyars, a people from the Turanian, basin proudly call themselves "the last pure blooded Scythians" and "Cousins of the Huns and Summerians", and for good reason, for these peoples all, in their turn, shook the very foundations of, civilization and in the case of the Huns, brought it crashing down. So now, should not the Magyars, proud and noble sons of Magor, seek to dominate the world?

From their power base north-east of the Carpathians, the Magyars it would seem, could have the pickings of any land. Yet, this is not so, immediatley to the south and east is the might of the Khaganate of the Khazars, a noble and mighty people, who managed at one point to force tribute from the Magyars. But the Khazars are not the biggest problem, it is the Mighty Bulgarian Khanate that threatens them most, this mighty nation is powerful enough to bring even the Greeks to their knees, this surely is the test of true power? But to the north west, their have been tales told, of vast armies appearing from the misty water like deamons and sweeping all before them in a torrent of blood and smoke, they must be true warriors!

But under sound leadership, the Magyars, sons of Magor and "the last pure blooded Scythians", have the power to destroy all befor them, shake the world to its core and perhaps even become Gods!

[ScionTheWorm]

ROMAIKI AUTOKRATORIA


The Byzantine empire was not known as the Byzantine empire by themselves -rather, they called themselves Romans and the term "Byzantine empire" originates from the time after the fall of Constantinople, and any other term than Romans used at the time was invented by Catholics who, in the fierce struggle between Orthodox and Catholic Christians, wanted to strengthen their claims as being the rightful Christian leaders. Still, Byzantine empire is the most used term for the late East roman empire, and is in many ways more correct as it better reflects how the East roman empire had developed to become very little roman and more Greek in it's culture and also - in a way - in warfare.

The Byzantine empire reached a peak in terms of land ownage in the 6th century during Justinian I with his famous general Belisarius, but the conquests were over-ambitious and couldn't possibly be kept with the resources available to the empire. Most of the land was lost to rebellions, and even more to the Muslim conquerors from 632 AD. The Byzantine bureaucracy and discrimination of among others the Jews meant the Arabs were often seen as liberators, and the Byzantines lost part of Asia minor and temporarily pushed back to Constantinople, where they, thanks to their greek fire and city walls could push back a muslim combined naval and land assault.

The Byzantines allied themselves to the Khazar khaganate in the fighting against the muslims, and both Khazars and Byzantines eventually managed to stop the expansion attempts. The Byzantines however soon faced another crisis on their Balkans front, losing much land to the Bulgars and ending up having Constantinople under siege. Again, the great walls and the sea access allowing new food to be transported into the city saved the Byzantines.

The Iconoclasm as well as several other fights made the Byzantines lose much of their foothold in southern and eastern Italy. That, and the pressure from bulgars and muslims, led to the empire being severely weakened. In 843 AD, the bulgars had calmed down, the muslims had learnt that taking Constantinople would be costly, and the Catholic and Orthodox churches had signed a truce, ending the Iconoclasm for a while. This finally gave the Byzantines a chance to rise again, starting a period of greatness that came to last until 1071 AD, when the seldjuk turks defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert and conquered most of Asia, thus making them lose valuable sources of income, grain and recruits for their army. The following necessary reorganization of the army weakened it, and the weakened economy also meant the Byzantines couldn't pay their mercenaries according to their deals. When the fourth crusade in 1204 AD went wrong and ended up storming the walls of the city, all mercenaries except the varangian guard refused to fight.

The Byzantine army before Manzikert consisted of a tagmata - a centralized standing army, and a themata - a local militia force going to battle only when needed. The Byzantine main weapon in the battlefield was the katapraktos and klibanophoros, heavily armored cavalrymen armed with bows or lances, and maces or swords. Records state that the Byzantines sometimes fought entire battles and campaigns with this heavy cavalry alone - without any infantry support whatsoever. However, the heavy cavalry was most effective when supported by infantry, including the skutatoi - heavy spearmen of high quality, and menavlatoi - pila- and sword-armed footmen of legionary type. If the Byzantine army has a weakness, it would be it's lack of faster, more mobile troops of higher quality. After Manzikert the Byzantines implemented a feudal-style system where proniai (feudal lords) formed the main cavalry force.

[ScionTheWorm]

KINGDOM OF ENGLISC

http://img215.echo.cx/img215/1086/sc98po.th.jpg (http://img215.echo.cx/my.php?image=sc98po.jpg) http://img71.echo.cx/img71/7802/sc109iu.th.jpg (http://img71.echo.cx/my.php?image=sc109iu.jpg) http://img214.echo.cx/img214/169/sc192oa.th.jpg (http://img214.echo.cx/my.php?image=sc192oa.jpg)

The Saxons came along with Jutes and Angles and conquered England during the fall of the west Roman empire. They have an army centered around infantry, but their cavalry is also quite good, something that gives them a flexible unit selection. However, their provinces can hardly support a larger cavalry force and the saxon lack of stronger missile troops in practise often makes them - for their commander - dangerously unvaried. The saxons originally based their warfare around spearmen - the fyrdmen and burwaran, a local militia acting as garrisons for local fortifications. The later viking influences led the saxons to incorporate the powerful huscarles into their army - both as mercenaries and as regulars, thus giving them a combination of powerful axemen and spearmen.
[/FONT][/SIZE]


WELSH


The Welsh are the remnants of among others the Celtic Silurii tribe that settled in western Britain before the roman occupation. The Welsh remained independent from Rome a little while longer than their southern and eastern neighbors, under the leadership of the famous leader Caradog, who according to the tales showed so much courage when he was eventually captured by the Romans, that the Romans didn't execute him as was the tradition with rebel leaders. Wales remained under Roman control until Rome started withdrawing from Britain, but wasn't of much use to the Romans due to it's lack of fertile farming lands and rough terrain.

When Germanic invaders conquered most of Britain from the local Celtic tribes, the Welsh managed to resist partly thanks to this nearly impregnable terrain, but the result was that the Welsh people were cut off from their former Celtic neighbors, something that led to the Welsh culture and warfare developing in a completely different way than that of the other Celts. In this period, they converted to Christianity.

The Welsh warfare soon became centered around mobile, light skirmishers and bows of very high quality, including the longbow which many centuries years later, implemented in the much larger English army, was crucial in battles like Crezy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. Already in it's earliest form, and implemented in such numbers that the Welsh could muster, it was a powerful weapon and more than one king on the island of Britain was killed by Welsh arrows.

Giraldus Cambrensis, in his 'Descriptio Cambriae', claims that:
"This light-armed people, relying more on their activity than on their strength, cannot struggle for the field of battle, enter into close engagement, or endure long and severe actions"

But he also states that:
"Though defeated and put to flight on one day, they are ready to resume the combat on the next, neither dejected by their loss, nor by their dishonour; and although, perhaps, they do not display great fortitude in open engagements and regular conflicts, yet they harass the enemy by ambuscades and nightly sallies. Hence, neither oppressed by hunger or cold, nor fatigued by martial labours, nor despondent in adversity, but ready, after a defeat, to return immediately to action, and again endure the dangers of war; they are as easy to overcome in a single battle, as difficult to subdue in a protracted war."

If they have a weakness that can threaten to destroy them, it's the tradition for kings to split their lands between their heirs, so that the Welsh as a people very seldom are united against the dangers that threaten them from the outside. However, from 820 AD there's been an exception from this pattern - the new king Rhodri Mawr, Rhodri the Great, has united the Welsh. In the short term the Welsh longbows and skirmishing tactics can help them remain independent, but in the long term their critical position and lack of economical strength and internal rivalry could turn out very problematic indeed, especially later when their enemies can field a more professional cavalry to ride down their light footmen who are only fast enough to skirmish in comparison to enemy footmen.

Historically, Rhodri Mawr ruled the kingdom until in 877 AD. Having held off many invasion attempts from vikings and saxons, he was eventually defeated by vikings and had to flee to Ireland, where he stayed for a year before returning and attempting to reestablish his kingdom. However, weakened by the conflicts, he was killed in a battle against the Mercians. Wales only experienced unity occasionally during the coming centuries, partly due to the tradition of dividing the land between heirs, but remained independent from England until in the end of the 13th century.

[ScionTheWorm]

KHAZAR KHAGANATE


The Khazar khaganate, like the Bulgar khanate, originated from the Gokturk empire which was split up in the early 7th century. The Bulgars were split up between the Volga, Danube and Black sea area, while the Khazars stayed on the steppes a formed a strong united khaganate (which was however unlike Bulgaria eliminated in the long term) between the Black and Caspian seas. According to most sources, the Khazars had a more settled, city-based culture than the other steppe peoples of the time.

The Khazars were allied to the Byzantines during a long period, during which they aided the Byzantines in fighting many wars: against the sassanids (this gave the Khazars and Byzantines control over the Georgia region), the first Khazar-Arab war (which ended with the Arabs being defeated in a battle outside the Khazar town of Balanjar) and the second Khazar-Arab war (resulting in an attempt to arrange a marriage between the warring parts, but the Khazar bride died or was killed - it's unclear which way it was - and it took some more time until peace was achieved).

The Khazars originally had a shamanist religion centered around worship of the sky god Tengri and the less important gods Umay (fertility goddess), Kuara (thunder god) and Erlik (god of death), but they were later also influenced by Confucian ideas from China. Like the Scythians, the Khazar women took part in war and governing and held a high status. Around 800 AD the the former religions were replaced by Judaism. It's disputable how complete the conversion was, but at least the leading members of the Khazar society converted and much suggests that a large portion of the people followed suit.

The Khazars were lead by the Khagan, who was the formal ruler of the Khazar peoples, but the actual leader in foreign affairs was the Bek, a general elected (based on proven skills) by the leading members of the Khazar society. The Arsiyah cavalrymen of Khwarazmian origin formed the bulk of the Khazar army, which also deployed auxiliary regiments formed by their tributaries. There was also a Khazar royal guard of footmen and a royal cavalry guard for the bek and khagan. The formidable cavalry of the Khazars was perhaps one of the most important reasons why they were so successful militarily, but they also had advanced artillery and could, during their golden era, afford to hire some of the best mercenaries available in the area.

After the Khazars had halted the muslim expansions, they went on the offensive. The Khazar expansion south was halted in the 9th century, and their further expansion was instead directed to the west. Territory was now extended from the Caspian sea and lower Volga to north shore of Black sea as far as to the Dnepr to the west. It is possible that it was the Khazars that actually founded Kiev, sometime before the 9th century, but at least they for sure had control over the area just east of Kiev at this time. Tributes were recieved after actions against Alans, Magyars, Goths, Greeks of the Crimea and the Volga-Bulgars, and trade routes were secured. The result was a flourishing economy that could support a strong army with many mercenaries, just like the Byzantines (some contemporary sources even list Khazar as one of the three most important empires in the world of the time). However, just like the Byzantines, loss of territories, competion in trade, and loss of tributes and other necessities for a good economy made the system crash when the Pechenegs rose in power and the Kievan Rus established a strong empire around Kiev. A campaign by the Rus Prince Svyatoslav destroyed most of Khazar in the middle of the 10th century. Last remnants of Khazar were wiped out in early to middle 11th century, but small tribes emigrated westwards and survived some centuries more.

[ScionTheWorm]

Asturia

[ScionTheWorm]

reserved...

[Edvinsen]

ehm, Its Harald Hårfagre to be correct, and his father is Halvdan Svarte ;)

[Kagemusha]

Why arent there a Finnish faction in the game?After all Vikings could easily raid western Europe but it took them over 500 hundred years to overcome Finnish tribes who even raided Swedish cities many times? :bow:

[ScionTheWorm]

Why arent there a Finnish faction in the game?After all Vikings could easily raid western Europe but it took them over 500 hundred years to overcome Finnish tribes who even raided Swedish cities many times? :bow:
i think it's a matter of compromises... max 20 factions allowed, and what the team thought was the most important ones was decided in the beginning of this. From what you say, I think it's a good choice to represent them by rebels, and not near necessary to make them a united faction. I hope we make them unique and resistant as you describe though, as it's a main issue to make rebels hard and expensive to wage war at. We won't be able to conquer finland in the first turn for instance, as we probably would be able to in vanilla rtw.
I guess they will at least have one unique unit, maybe more. We haven't completed this issue in any way, so if you have a description and justification of an important unit, we should, and probably will, make it for the mod. if not, it's a matter of priority - we are only two skinners/modellers.

[Kagemusha]

Im sorry.Im too harsh this iron age is just too close to my heart.If i can give you somekind of information ,i will.I think you guyes are doing wonderfull job. :bow:

[Ranika]

So there is no confusion, I recommended the harp on a blue field as the flag of Ireland because it was Brian Boru's royal seal. Ireland as a whole did have an official royal seal (the modern flag of Munster; three crowns on a blue field), but Brian was the first king in a very long time to actually exert any clout. The blue field-harp did not become the seal at all (aside from Brian's reign) until Henry the 1st made it the official symbol of the kingdom of Ireland (after claiming title), but it wasn't recognized by the Irish chiefs until the 17th century. However, the modern harp isn't quite the same as the harp of Brian, which had a nude female figure on it, but I feel that you may prefer the modern harp, as is used by the Irish government today, and is more recognizable. However, if you'd prefer Brian's harp (and have the patience to change it), you can see a simple image of it at the site I list below; or, if you'd prefer the modern flag of Munster (technically the most accurate, I suppose, as it was the general mark of the High King at the time, and the flag of the Desmumu, the drognan from which Brian came):

http://www.heraldry.ws/

I never really elaborated much, and I know it's late to, but it never really came to mind to, and I'm sorry to bring it up so late.

[Chudolf]

Where is Polanes??

[ScionTheWorm]

not here, that's for sure... (max 20 factions)

[Chudolf]

So when BI will release you can make Polanes.
in BI won`t be limit faction.

[skeletor]

We have the Rus faction in, and i found this: In the 10th century, the term "Polans" was virtually out of use and exchanged for "Rus".

So i guess their in afterall.

-Skel-

[caesar44]

The Vikings landed also in Spain and Italy , so ? they are going to be rebels too ?

[ScionTheWorm]

not asturia and al andalus

[Cronos Impera]

Will there be a romanian faction in-game. I've counted fifteen factions so far and RTW enables twenty factions. There has to be five spare faction slots. The Magyars fought with romanian states for control of Transylvania. Romanian resistance was so intense that diplomacy and marriage ware necesary for the Arpadian dinasty to take hold of the province. Before Manzikert romanians ( known as vlahs at that time rebelled with bulgarian assistance and formed an Bulgaro-Romanian state in the Balkans): Stefan si Dussan ware the names of the two vlah leaders. Can you create a vlah factionat the northern friges of the Byzantine empire covering a part of Thessalia and the Bulgaro-Romanian space?

[ScionTheWorm]

See introduction thread, there are 20 factions. The ones that's not listed here, we have yet to make factiondescriptions to

[Incongruous]

The Vlach were not a cohhesive nation at the time, and were easily overun by the Bulgars and Magyars.

[Fianóglach]

Hey guys, excellent looking mod, I can;t wait! I just have one little thing to point out. the fadda on the E in Éire should be like that, not the backwards Scots way ;) if you guys need any help with the Irish faction PM me or MSN me (dabluedonkey@hotmail.com)

[Ranika]

For the Scots, perhaps Sgaothaich; it's essentially just the equivalent of 'Scotsmen', but it'd be appropriate both as the kingdom of Dal Riada and as Alba.

[Incongruous]

We need to have a discussion about the starting date, because any earlier than 880 would mean no Danelaw and no Kingdom of the Englisc ~:confused:

[ScionTheWorm]

you're really torn apart by this... 843 ad is fine by me. pros/cons?

[Meneldil]

Before 843, no Western and Eastern Frankish Empire, no Lotharingia, no Rus, etc.

[Spongly]

Surely the "scots" in this period would be "Fir nAlban". And yeah, 843 means no "Englisc" but rather "Northhymbre", "Mierce", "Wesseaxne", "Easeaxne", Suseaxne" and so on.

[ScionTheWorm]

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.

[GoreBag]

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

[ScionTheWorm]

It depends on the start date. Has a date been finalized?
it was until bopa started bitchin :charge:

[GoreBag]

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.

[Incongruous]

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.

[ScionTheWorm]

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?

[Ranika]

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).

[Incongruous]

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.

[caesar44]

880 ?
no !!!
783 (or 773 or 779)?
yes !!!
why ?
it was the beginning of the Viking invasions

[Meneldil]

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)

[Incongruous]

You need to brush up on your history. ~D :book:

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! ~D

[Meneldil]

Quite frankly, I'm not that good at britain history, and my sources were mainly this map (http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0900.htm) and this one (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/england_after_886.jpg)

[ScionTheWorm]

You need to brush up on your history. ~D :book:

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! ~D
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

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

[Incongruous]

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, ~:confused: 880 would be the best!

[GoreBag]

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

[ScionTheWorm]

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, ~:confused: 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?

[Rodion Romanovich]

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, ~:confused: 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.

[Shaun]

can we see a map please?

[Incongruous]

Hmph! Oh well.

[Spongly]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

[Incongruous]

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 :bow:

[Jarlabanke]

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?

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

[GBG]

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".

[Jarlabanke]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@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.

[Jarlabanke]

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

[GBG]

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?

[Narayanese]

Frm what I can read from gutansagan (some words are diffucult in it) there is a coutry called suiariki (=sweden) which is ruled by upsala kunungi (=the king in Uppsala).

[Jarlabanke]

The only thing Västgötaskolan has done so far is to pretty much disregard all archeological and historical evidence and give way to exactly the same kind of patriotic feeling you seem to acusing other of. How did Adam of Bremen become a propaganda machine for a Swedish state that according to you didn't exist? Did Sven Estridsson just make it up? He and of course all the other Medieval, Dark Age historians who time after time continue to mention Sweden but does hardly ever speak a word of a kingdom in Götaland, and who when they do place it in the migration period. Is it plausible that people who could navigate from Scandinavia as far west as Nova Scotia, as far east as the Caspian sea and as far south as Northen Africa, would not know their own neighbours?
I'd like to here which historical claims of the västgöta skola are...

[Rodion Romanovich]

The conflict between those two groups (Västgöta and Uppsala) is actually quite pointless. It only depends on how you define the term "birth of a nation", and if you define it one way one side wins and if you define it another way the other side wins. It seems like the debate is just about how you are supposed to define the term "birth of a nation", and that it's only about attributing either of the parts with that term. Quite pointless what the words tell, the truth doesn't change either way.

Now if you look at the historical evidence, you see that at the time when the Sviar tribes dominated in terms of foreign activity, i.e. viking raids etc., a very small part of modern Sweden was included in the kingdom centered around Birka etc. However, even if you go forward in time to the 13th century, the area united under one ruler is still very much smaller than the size of modern Sweden.

It's therefore, I have to say, pointless to center the discussion about what we should call the birth of Sweden. A debate of that kind has no historical significance but is rather an unscientific and more emotional type of debate. Instead, the discussion should be centered around how the different tribes/kingdoms/factions in the area actually lived and acted. No matter how it was, both Sviar and Gotar have contributed to the modern Swedish culture etc. and are practically the same. As for the name Sweden, which is thought to originate from "Svea rike", the most logical assumption is to date it back to the time when Svithiod was more dominating - it seems unlikely that the Gotar, after gaining control over the Sviar, would use their rival's "tribesname" as name of their kingdom. Not by thereby claiming the Sviar to be the only contributors to the modern Sweden.



The idea of an ancient "Svea Rike" that engulfed much of modern day Sweden and conquered foreign land is purely fictional.


Yes, the early Sviar kingdom/faction was most likely a lot smaller - at times probably not much larger than a circle including Birka and Uppsala. The conquests spoken of in the tales aren't entirely fictional though. The siege of Constantinople, which I believe Byzantine sources confirm, most likely came from Swedish vikings - whether they acted on own initiative or ordered by a "state" is unclear. Among viking graves there have also been found statues and other things that confirm the contacts with Byzantines and even Arabic peoples. As for the colonization of the Novgorod area, it's not merely a fraction of later Russian names and early cultural items that are based on Norse names (which would be the case if there were only trade connections - compare to the later Hansa's influence on names of inhabitants in port cities for example), but a very great number of them are. That it was tribes probably of Swedish origin that colonized that area can hardly be considered fictional, but theoretically this colonization could have been carried out by other vikings - perhaps coming from independent ostgotar tribes. In defense of Västgöta-skolan one can say that the viking conquests were quite short-lived and didn't last long. The viking infantry based warfare probably proved lacking when the couched lance charge was spread over Europe, at about the same time the vikings started losing importance, and when feudalism and other political changes made the prospects of quick hit and run attacks more difficult.

[GBG]

You can open your eyes, or you can choose not to. You can believe propaganda from the 19-th century, or you can choose not to.

I will not debate this issue further. The notion of claiming that there was a "Svea Rike" in the 8-th or 9-th century is just silly. Ask any historian you want.

[Rodion Romanovich]

You can open your eyes, or you can choose not to. You can believe propaganda from the 19-th century, or you can choose not to.

I will not debate this issue further. The notion of claiming that there was a "Svea Rike" in the 8-th or 9-th century is just silly. Ask any historian you want.

What exactly in my post is it you disagree with? I don't think I disagree with you about anything else than that the name "Svea rike" must originate from an earlier period than the period when the Gotar tribes had just gained control over the Sviar tribes, as it seems very illogical to name the faction after their defeated rivals, rather than calling it "Gotrike".

If you think any 19th century propaganda has anything to do with my point of view, you're wrong. I'm basing it on the primary sources, either by reading the primary sources myself, or by tracing which primary sources the secondary sources referred to, and I make the judgement completely on my own. I don't trust Adam of Bremen much, my main sources are the archaeological findings and contemporary chronicles written by people who would benefit from diminishing the importance of the vikings.

[GoreBag]

I'm just a little mad that he pissed on Beowulf. It's fiction, yes, but it's based on truth, as all epics are.

[Jarlabanke]

King Hygalecs (sp?) death has actually been more or less confirmed in contemporary chronicles.

The siege on Constantinople was carried out by Oleg, and thus really not connected with any Swedish state, even though the Nestors chronicle states many varangians participated. The quite famous "Ingvars tåget" of the 1070's is recored on dozens of runestones and at least one Icelandic chronicle though, was an iniciative from the Swedish state to open up the eastern traderouts once again.
And that people from Östergötland particpated in the east is nicely illustrated by evidence pointing towards Orthodox christianity existing there before catholic.

[Ranika]

The Gaels formed out of a coalesence of Iberians, Gauls, and Britons, along with the natives of the island, between the 6th and 3rd century BC, emerging as a unique demi-Celtic culture. Despite intermittent wars with British tribes and petty kingdoms, they were relatively overlooked, except in terms of trade in the earlier periods. The dark ages were not 'dark' for the Irish. To the contrary, they are the 'Irish Golden Age'. Ireland was untouched by invaders that spread through Europe for a long time. After being Christianized, they rapidly began to copy books, and maintain knowledge of western Europe. Their missionaries spread throughout Europe, reestablishing Christendom as the dominate force against pagan invaders, and the petty kingdoms of Ireland were arguably among the most advanced kingdoms in Europe at the time, largely due that they were some of the only kingdoms untouched by the ravages of invaders. However, when the vikings invaded, a great deal was lost; so many libraries in Britain were destroyed, including the medical library of Brega, that it is arguable that medical sciences in the region were thrown back at least a few centuries; complex surgeries and medical procedures were almost all lost, replaced almost entirely by local remedies, that couldn't do near the same good. However, the invasions did force the Irish onto the world stage more widely; while Irish missionaries, poetry, and literature were known in most of Europe, the island was seen, by many outside of the British Isles, as a somewhat mysterious place. The Irish victory at Clontarf became one of the most heralded battles of the medieval era, with any self respecting aristocrat claiming to have a relative who fought or died there. However, the understanding of the island was still rather poor, and Norman-English used the justification that the Irish were 'largely pagan and savage' to explain to their peers why it was necessary for them to invade, after the death of their ally, the king of Leinster. No one really questioned this; few had ever been to Ireland for any extended period of time, and the Norman descriptions of the region did little to help Ireland's cause. Further, Ireland had not directly communicated with the papacy since the missions of St. Palladius nearly 700 years earlier, so the church saw little reason to intervene, since it too was unaware of the status of the island (though the church had recognized several high kings since Brian Boru as "the true and honorable 'Scotum Imperator'"; Emperor of the Irish').

The proper title of the king of Ireland is Ardruire, Ard Ri, or, in Latin, Scotum Imperator. The high king, as he was called in English, did consider himself an emperor. He took tribute from multiple kings, and, as such, he technically was an emperor. The high king was elected through Gaelic tanistry laws, generally, as were all other officials. However, there were exceptions; Malachy surrendered his crown to Brian Boru, but only under the condition that when Brian died, Malachy would become the high king. Heirs were not considered though; there was no concept of heirs in the common sense of blood descent, but there were 'tánaise'; a person elected to succeed a current king or chief when the current one died, under 'tana' (lordship) laws; these laws included rules that stated that the the tanist (the tánaise in old Irish) must have his mental and physical faculties about himself, and other requirements. However, in many regions, it was expected that the next king, chief, or other official, would be elected from the immediate family of the former official; however, a Gaelic 'immediate' family included a mileu of cousins, uncles, and other relations, thought the tanist was often selected as the current chief or king's eldest son (if he met the requirements and no one objected). Law was adjudicated by the elected 'brehons', judges. The brehons could not change laws; only enforce them. If a law was to be changed, a clan (called a tuath) would vote for or against it. If this law was to affect multiple tuath, the results would be taken to council, where the brehons would each be accompanied by two men from their clan, to ensure the vote was properly conveyed. No one, including brehons, was above law; in fact, the higher one's station in society, the more harshly they could be punished for infractions. However, they didn't execute anyone; instead, if one could not pay the fines for murder, he would be outcast, and the offended family could legally kill him if they wished. The position of high king was more effective in the earlier periods, but the sub-kingdoms grew more indepedent and petty, until the position of high king was essentially meaningless. However, this didn't keep the kings from fighting over this position. The Irish-Gaels spread into Caledonia, forming the kingdom of Dal Riada, which was also considered an Irish kingdom for several centuries, and involved itself in the politics of the Irish petty kingdoms. In the late dark ages, two main contenders, Brian, the king of Munster, and Malachy, the king of Ulster and Meath, took the title of high king (though Malachy was recognized). Brian's claimancy was largely ignored as he was technically considered a pirate, for having spent years raiding Ivar, the Norse king of Leinster's, holdings. However, his popularity as a skilled and heroic commander who could win battles with inferior numbers (actually just his own Dalcassian clansmen, and those who'd join him for his fame), gained him great respect. Malachy was also a legendary commander though; he commanded the army of Ulster, and in 980, he captured Teamhair (Tara) and Dubb Linn (Dublin), and pronounced himself high king. In 998, Malachy and Brian came to a truce; Malachy recieved the north of Ireland and Brian the south. By 1002, the joint sway of Malachy and Brian could not last. Malachy, being unable to gather enough support to take on the mighty forces of Brian, allowed Brian peacefully to take over his lands. This was the greatest moment in the history of post-Christian native Ireland. Brian, by his title, “Ard Ri”, was claiming the kingship of all Ireland; a title left improperly fulfilled since the pagan king Niall of the Nine Hostages. For 11 years, Brian rebuilt Ireland, using the island's comparatively vast resources and trade wealth (which were not able to be used to their full extent due to disunity) to lift the Ireland from the pillage of Norse invaders. However, in 1013, the Leinstermen and the Dublin Vikings revolted against Brian. Mael Morda, King of Leinster, allied himself with the Dublin Vikings and went to war with Brian to try and claim the title of high king for himself. The Dublin Vikings sought allies overseas. The Earl of Orkney came with a large contingent, while other Viking contingents came from as far afield as Iceland and Normandy. Brian gave them Battle at Clontarf on Good Friday, 1014 and the Irish defeated them. However, as the Vikings were retreating, one of their leaders, Bothair, murdered Brian, and was later hunted down by Brian's brother Wolf the Quarrelsome, and killed in retribution; the strong high king was dead, but viking power in Ireland was broken. Malachy took the title of Ard Ri, and controlled Ireland until his death; this was arguably the most peaceful period Ireland had experienced since the invasions began. However, Malachy was not as ambitious or strong as Brian, and the high kingship would never again be so powerful; he did, however, manage to hold the island together, and claimed Dublin and Mannau (temporarily) as vassals. Ireland's central rule weakened, until the Norman invasions began, followed by most of the island plunging into anarchy.

Edit; I don't know where this will fit, some one with a better grasp of English may wish to edit it in appropriately to fit, this is simply a concept that should be in to give a better idea of the culture;

Gaels, the Irish included, were named absent of the modern concept of 'surnames'. A person's name was their given birth name, followed by the name of their father, preceded by mc, moc, or mac; literally 'son of', or the name of an admired ancestor or relative, preced by one of these pre-terms, followed by their tuath name (their 'clan' title), which was 'Ua' (of) followed by the name of their tuath. After this would be any other titles they had, such as 'Boruma' (Cattle-Counter), or the name of a saint they were dedicated to (such as 'Mael Sechnaill'). In the final case, a devotees 'saint' name was often used as if it were their given name, such as in the case of 'Mael Cuilm'; more commonly seen today as 'Malcolm', and was listed as the name of several kings, though not their birth names.

[caesar44]

Sorry , but where we can see the camp' map , that is , the distribution of the faction on the camp' map ?

[Meneldil]

I'll post a pic later, if Legio agrees.

[caesar44]

I hold ~:)

[GoreBag]

Heirs were not considered though; there was no concept of heirs.

What about the Tanist?

[Ranika]

Oh, that's true; I meant more an heir in the sense of direct blood heirs like in most European monarchies; I should make mention of 'tánaise' (the proper period term for the individual; the system is 'tana'; lordship).

For those who don't know, tanistry refers to a replacement chief/king elected before the current one dies (in the case of high king Brian to Malachy, Malachy was the tanist to Brian, though Malachy wasn't so much elected as agreed upon by the two men's agreement over who would be high king, when Malachy yielded to Brian). Later, most often, the eldest son of the current ruler would be tanist, but this had nothing to do with prigomeniture. It was that dignity of chieftainship or kingship was expected, often, to go to the eldest and most worthy of the same bloodline; however, Gaelic bloodlines are pretty wide and also validated cousins and the like, and that was more of a guideline anyway; non-related aristocracy could also be made tanist.

On a side note about another game, ever played something from Paradox? Crusader Kings specifically; of their possible 'heir' systems, there wasn't Tanistry. Kinda depressing, they just had a generic 'electoral' system. I didn't expect specific 'regional' tanistry laws, but the basest concept of tanistry would've been nice, but I suppose it'd require taking into account all of a character's traits and the like (the mentally infirmed/crippled/etc., were not eligible for descent under tanistry laws).

Neongod; Aside from tanistry, how was the rest of the description? Mind you, my English is sometimes less than perfect (mainly in terms of grammar), and I misconvey ideas at times.

[caesar44]

I'll post a pic later, if Legio agrees.


Legio , what is your answer ?

[GoreBag]

Neongod; Aside from tanistry, how was the rest of the description? Mind you, my English is sometimes less than perfect (mainly in terms of grammar), and I misconvey ideas at times.

I would say that your English has improved since I last critiqued, for lack of a better word, one of your posts (my Gaelic, though, still sucks). I thought the description was quite extensive, but I'd rather a Tuath be considered a 'clan' and not a 'tribe'; the Gaels are, after all, the group that spawned the word.

After having read that there will be conflict as to the naming of family members in the game (they require surnames, apparently), it might be appropriate to note that the Irish used no surnames before the Norman invasion.

[Ranika]

Surnames didn't exist, but there were 'clan' titles, like 'Ua Conchobar' (literally just 'of Conchobar', but implies descent from Conchobar), which work perfectly fine for 'surnames'. I did forget though, any 'Ui' titles in the Irish name list need to be made 'Ua'; I wasn't thinking at the time (actually, I was thinking like I was just writing up 'Clan titles', as in, entire clans). 'Ui' is 'of' on a mass scale (a tuath), 'Ua' is personal; so, one can be a member of the 'Ui Neill', but is, himself, a 'Ua Neill'. The exception is the Connaghta sometimes used 'Uo', which can be both plural and singular 'of', though it was sometimes used in place of 'Ua'; we can have a few 'Uo' surnames (common clan names from Connaght, like 'Uo Connair' and 'Uo Conglach' perhaps).

Also, secondary titles can be used, such as 'Red-Hand', 'Black-Knee', 'the Devout', etc. (in an appropriate period Gaelic; some names like this I already included in the surname lists I wrote). I will note in the descript though that these are all titles denoting a trait or clan affiliation, rather than a 'surname' in the modern sense.

I'll change 'tribe' to 'clan' (though even calling them 'clans' is a bit late {though I do agree with the change; this is how most English speakers recognize Gaelic extended families}, except for the literal Gaelic 'Cenell' and 'Clainall'; by English speakers they were generally referred to as tribes, which is actually a kind of translation of 'drognan', which is more literally 'the people of', and was usually used to describe pre-Norman 'counties' in Ireland; such, 'Drognan Ard Mammo' was 'The People of Mayo'; clan was, in English, more commonly referencing later clans in Scotland, rather than just any Gaelic clan).

[Meneldil]

Legio , what is your answer ?


I'm sure Legio agrees, but the provinces aren't all done yet (I'm still waiting for PseRamesses' infos about Scandinavia), and I'm not sure if faction such as the Welsh, the Irish, Nordmmanland etc. should be treated as ethnical group (hence the welsh would own all wales) or as political entities (hence the welsh would represent the Principalty (?) of Gwynedd, and only hold Gwyneed at the start)

[caesar44]

I'm sure Legio agrees, but the provinces aren't all done yet (I'm still waiting for PseRamesses' infos about Scandinavia), and I'm not sure if faction such as the Welsh, the Irish, Nordmmanland etc. should be treated as ethnical group (hence the welsh would own all wales) or as political entities (hence the welsh would represent the Principalty (?) of Gwynedd, and only hold Gwyneed at the start)

Thanks , I will hold again :furious3:

[Meneldil]

You may still see some screenshots in the Campaign map thread.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'll post a pic later, if Legio agrees.

Yeah, I agree

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'm sure Legio agrees, but the provinces aren't all done yet (I'm still waiting for PseRamesses' infos about Scandinavia), and I'm not sure if faction such as the Welsh, the Irish, Nordmmanland etc. should be treated as ethnical group (hence the welsh would own all wales) or as political entities (hence the welsh would represent the Principalty (?) of Gwynedd, and only hold Gwyneed at the start)

For Wales, all the areas controlled by Rhodri Mawr, who united several Welsh principalities, would be the starting position. I believe he came from Gwynedd, so "Welsh" is subject to a name change to Gwynedd or something similar, I guess. Norwegians should own little more than Vaestfold with it's city Kaupang from start, etc.

So it's political entities that is the general plan.

[caesar44]

Yeah, I agree


Thanks ~:cheers:

Good Meneldil ? :bow:

[Rodion Romanovich]

I can recommend this thread for info on the campaign map: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=48794

especially the later pages shows more about the provinces, but it's not the final version (some provinces, especially in Balkans area, not yet placed). However, it doesn't yet show who'll own which province.

[caesar44]

I can recommend this thread for info on the campaign map: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=48794

especially the later pages shows more about the provinces, but it's not the final version (some provinces, especially in Balkans area, not yet placed). However, it doesn't yet show who'll own which province.

OK !

[Ranika]

Oh, such as it is, is there a way in RTW to represent Tanistry? At least giving the Gaelic faction heirs a 'tánaise' trait that would boost their influence, and maybe management (the tánaise was given a little crew that helped them keep their affairs in order, especially in the instance that the the current king or chief should die suddenly).

[GoreBag]

Surnames didn't exist, but there were 'clan' titles, like 'Ua Conchobar' (literally just 'of Conchobar', but implies descent from Conchobar), which work perfectly fine for 'surnames'. I did forget though, any 'Ui' titles in the Irish name list need to be made 'Ua'; I wasn't thinking at the time (actually, I was thinking like I was just writing up 'Clan titles', as in, entire clans). 'Ui' is 'of' on a mass scale (a tuath), 'Ua' is personal; so, one can be a member of the 'Ui Neill', but is, himself, a 'Ua Neill'. The exception is the Connaghta sometimes used 'Uo', which can be both plural and singular 'of', though it was sometimes used in place of 'Ua'; we can have a few 'Uo' surnames (common clan names from Connaght, like 'Uo Connair' and 'Uo Conglach' perhaps).

But a man should not have the same "surname" as his father, even it is a clan title, since "Ua" refers most specifically to the man's grandfather, although it was used more loosely as any male descendant. But, then, what of Mac- names and such? There are already "nickname"-type surnames in-game.

As far as tanistry goes...well, you have the option of selecting the heir of your faction from your immediate family.

[Ranika]

I'm aware of the concern. Perhaps could use traits to eliminate 'births' in Gaelic faction, perse, and rely on 'adoptions' (which could be described as the coming of age of members of aristocratic families), 'man-of-the-hour', and marriages, so that the 'last name' is more of a random title/nickname?

[GoreBag]

I'm aware of the concern. Perhaps could use traits to eliminate 'births' in Gaelic faction, perse, and rely on 'adoptions' (which could be described as the coming of age of members of aristocratic families), 'man-of-the-hour', and marriages, so that the 'last name' is more of a random title/nickname?

That's an interesting idea. Maybe the adoptions can even be tweaked to begin at 0 or 1 year of age, but even if not, that seems like a reasonable suggestion. The other would be to grant nicknames to all Gaelic characters at birth.

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but did the Welsh operate similarly?

[Ranika]

That's an interesting idea. Maybe the adoptions can even be tweaked to begin at 0 or 1 year of age, but even if not, that seems like a reasonable suggestion. The other would be to grant nicknames to all Gaelic characters at birth.

Well, we wouldn't need give them 'nicknames' at birth, perse; Dal, Ua/Uo, and Mac can be used at 'birth', and specific traits can grant nicknames. Like farmland development in a town governed by a character could give a stewardship trait for Gaels, which would change the character's 'last name' to Boruma/Boroime (Cattle-Counter), representing his many cattle. Brian would've likely attained this trait; he rebuilt a great deal of things once king; however, we could also have it as a title given by a trait gained by sacking settlements (plundering cattle).

[GoreBag]

Well, we wouldn't need give them 'nicknames' at birth, perse; Dal, Ua/Uo, and Mac can be used at 'birth', and specific traits can grant nicknames. Like farmland development in a town governed by a character could give a stewardship trait for Gaels, which would change the character's 'last name' to Boruma/Boroime (Cattle-Counter), representing his many cattle. Brian would've likely attained this trait; he rebuilt a great deal of things once king; however, we could also have it as a title given by a trait gained by sacking settlements (plundering cattle).

My worry is that the clan names would continue to have the same "surname", say, Mac Mholain, even when the character's father wasn't named Mholain. Can it be easily programmed that that the character's name in-game should appear as "Mac (father's name)" or "Ua (grandfather's name)"?

[Ranika]

I highly doubt that's possible, but we may just need to bite the bullet, as it were, with Gaelic names, and try to make some type of approximation or simply an exception; the hardcode is a painfully cruel bit.

[GoreBag]

I fear you are right about that, but I wonder if there is some way to distinguish between the names that appear in-game and the "internal" names used by the program. If this is the case, a "Mac" or "Ua" name wouldn't be hard to manage, I think.

[ScionTheWorm]

do you know if anyone have successfully changed hardcoded things?

[GoreBag]

I have heard that hard code has been cracked, but openly admitting this or even...well, making a mod out of it would be illegal. This a very hush-hush issue.

[ScionTheWorm]

it wouldn't do any good either probably, it could bring so many bugs...

[tutankamon]

You aren't going to make Viking cavalry are you? because that would be a dumb idea... they only used horses to get somewhere on the battlefield quick.. but when they got there they dismounted... they never charged a foe on horseback!

But nice graphics ~;)

[Ranika]

Neongod; If some one had the gumption, I suppose, they could maybe work out an extensive system of traits for Gaels based on the region they first show up in or their family line and assign them a trait that just gives them an appropriate last name, but I doubt anyone would wish to go through such work.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Actually they had a little cavalry, but mostly late in the period. You're right that the main usage for horses was to get to the battlefield though. Viking cavalry is a unit of neglectable importance in this mod.

[Spongly]

You aren't going to make Viking cavalry are you? because that would be a dumb idea... they only used horses to get somewhere on the battlefield quick.. but when they got there they dismounted... they never charged a foe on horseback!

But nice graphics ~;)

It's the same with the Englisc - their only cavalry should be "Horswealas" - Welsh auxiliary horsemen. Other than that they really didn't fight from horseback.

[GoreBag]

Neongod; If some one had the gumption, I suppose, they could maybe work out an extensive system of traits for Gaels based on the region they first show up in or their family line and assign them a trait that just gives them an appropriate last name, but I doubt anyone would wish to go through such work.

I was thinking more along the lines of a simple script that changed the character's last name to Mac-(father's name) at birth. Titular or adjective names, like Boru, would be earned in the normal fashion ("the bloody", "the mighty", or so on). I don't think these names would require a translation or a modification to be effective, at least for a first release.

[Ranika]

I was thinking more along the lines of a simple script that changed the character's last name to Mac-(father's name) at birth. Titular or adjective names, like Boru, would be earned in the normal fashion ("the bloody", "the mighty", or so on). I don't think these names would require a translation or a modification to be effective, at least for a first release.

That would work, but the Gaelic name lists would get fairly big. The Irish should have some 'Ua' or 'Uo' names (or 'O', which shows up earliest in the tail-end of this period with some regularity in the east), though the Scots would lack any such names; all Mc/Mac/Moc/Mhic (Mhic was the 'Pictish' variant which was later used somewhat regularly in the north).

[GoreBag]

That would work, but the Gaelic name lists would get fairly big. The Irish should have some 'Ua' or 'Uo' names (or 'O', which shows up earliest in the tail-end of this period with some regularity in the east), though the Scots would lack any such names; all Mc/Mac/Moc/Mhic (Mhic was the 'Pictish' variant which was later used somewhat regularly in the north).

This is true...sigh. Well, the Irish would have come from Munster, yes? Which variant of "ua" should be used in that case? Mac- or Mak- should probably be good for the Scottish ruling family.

[Ranika]

Uo and Ua were both used depending on the region of Munster (Brian Boru actually appears on rolls with both variants when he was younger; he didn't start using his father's name until shortly before his brother died). However, Ireland's rebels would still have mac/uo variants. A few variations, if it could be done, would be nice for rebel leaders in Ireland, since mac variants were used in Ireland too, but we will invariably need to make exceptions unless some one is particularly dedicated to making names work appropriately (which, if one wanted it perfectly accurate, some would have to be 'named' after their grandfathers, or have their names change during the course of their lives).

[GoreBag]

Rebels..hadn't thought of that. Did EB have a similar name system in place? Or can you even say?

[Ranika]

Rebels draw their names from the 'faction creator' of the province. So, if a rebel province had the Irish as their faction creator, rebels in it would pool their names/last names from the name list of the Irish.

[GoreBag]

Well, I suppose a seperate script could be put into place for the rebels. The real problem would be getting much variation out of the prefixes.

[GoreBag]

I'm not sure if the team is aware of this, but the issue surrounding unplayable factions in version 1.3 or BI has been resolved.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=948188&postcount=8

What a relief.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yup, I fixed it two days ago ~:) Thanks anyway. Now comes the last touches of fixing the cultures, then the adding of religions, which might be quite difficult... Then it's time for building editing, then scripting and coordinating it with the edited units.

[GoreBag]

Great. It sounds like you're on the ball.

[Harmageddon]

I have been reading the scandinavian storyline and i have found a big error!
Just to be sure i lokked it up in my book: "The great book of world history" from 2004. And as I thourt the book says that it was NOT norwegien people that founded Normandy.

About 885 AC. the Danish vikings plondered France. In desperation to stop these attacks the frence payed a tribute called "Danegæld". Years later "Normandy" was given to the danish viking; "Rollo" because they feared his grat army.

I also found a link on the internet (It's in danish but there is a picture):

http://hjem.get2net.dk/fyrkat/dansk/index.htm

In 844 the danish vikings alsow plundered the arabic controlled Sevilla in Spain. 15 years later the dansih vikings "Bjørn Jernside" og "Hastings" sailed out to plunder north Afrika. They didt that and sailed to plunder Rome. And so they did. Or at least they thourt they did, later it was known that it was not Rome but a much smaller city called Luna.

For more detail just ask~:)

[Rodion Romanovich]

Will look that up...

[Meneldil]

In all the books I read, Rollon is described as a Norvegian, not as a Dane

[Harmageddon]

In all the books I read, Rollon is described as a Norvegian, not as a Dane

Well i learned in scool he was Danish. In all the books I have read he was danish. I tried to find some info to back it up. Here is what I found:

http://www.fortidensjelling.dk/jelling0.htm

It's on Danish sow you should read this instead:

http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/scn/faq33.html

It can properly be used for the Denmark faction information in general.

We know for sure that the army he was cormanding was Danish and that Danish vikings had been in France long time before. They got a tribute called "Danegæld" -depth to Danes. Normandy was colonised by Danes. They adopted the French language and ways and became christians. They was paid to protect France from other Vikings including their Danish ancestors (which is understandable since the Franks were there ancestors as well).

[Meneldil]

http://sinclair.quarterman.org/who/rollo.html
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_de_la_Normandie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo%2C_Count_%28or_Duke%29_of_Normandy
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollon

Based on wikipedia.fr article (which is based on Icelandic sagas), he was a Norwegian, but his followers were mostly danes.

[skeletor]

The evicence says that they probably came from Viken (the area around the Oslo fjord) But in these times there were no Denmark or Norway. And this area were often under kings with seats in todays denmark. The lack of clear borders and consolidated nations in Scandinavia, makes it a relative question if they were Norwegians, Danes, or simply vikings (pople from the "vik")~;)
The area around the Oslo fjord were under the whole middle age in times part of both Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish roule. And it's only after 1000 - 1100 we can speak of "norwegians" and "danes".

In the attacks in Normandy, there were probably pople from both todays Denmark and Norway. And it's impossible to tell if Rollo/Rolf came from the north or the south side of Skagerak. But the evidece shows that there were in fact pople that claimed they came from Vestforld, witch is on the west bank of the Oslofjord. There were allso pople from the danish mainland.


-Skel-

[Harmageddon]

Well, I must agree that it looks pretty convincing Meneldil. I have written an E-mail to some historians. In any chase I think they can give a reason why the answers the sources provide is so different. But it is for sure that his army was Danish and that the Normans were decedents of the Danish and Frankish.

[skeletor]

Here is your problem....

You must secide if they came from a Norwegian/Dane kingdom, or Norwegian/Dane area.

As you can se here, sometimes the viken (oslofjord area) was under Norwegian roule, and sometimes under Danes.

If they came from an area witch today is Norway, but rouled by a Dane king, were they then Norwegians or Danes?

http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/scandinavia/denmark.htm

http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/scandinavia/norway.htm

-Skel-

[Meneldil]

Man, why haven't you shown me these maps earlier ? :duel:

[skeletor]

I just found them:hide:

They are allso VERY standarised, and the situation in the area up to 1000 - 1100 were alot more complicated and fragmented then these maps show..

-Skel-

[Magdala]

Hi. I speak fluent Irish and have a lot of friends doing it in uni at the moment. Modern Irish is very different from the Irish that would have been used from 843-1100 and changed a lot throughout that time, but if theres anything I could do to help I have either the knowledge or the resources to do so. Also, quick question. Historically Ulster was divided from the rest of Ireland by a border known as "Black pigs dyke". Heres some info.http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/ni/black_pigs_dyke.shtml Will this be included in the mod. Here's my e-mail if you need to get in touch with regards to the Irish faction edawson03@qub.ac.uk.

[Meneldil]

Well, any help would be welcome.
Something we'd need right now is someone able to add accents to the names and titles provided by Ranika in the 'names' topic.

[Ranika]

That said, as earlier pointed out, letters with a K should be dropped (Ivernic names and language were out of use by 843, and were only ever used in Munster), probably Y names, though some Welsh names were still present in Munster as late as the 1000s, and a Welsh-speaking minority existed in Desmumu.

Although, yeah, I can't add fada for some reason; I'm so computer illiterate I used to have to copy and paste fada where necessary...and frankly I'm too lazy at this point. That also said, if you want to place fada, please check with me; their placement has changed even in words that are still the same (including dropping/adding fada to certain words or removing them from others entirely).

That said, keep in mind that the name list was not actually tailored for this mod particularly (the massive list I posted, that is). It was just a huge list of Gaelic and Irish names from different periods; it includes both a lot of anglicized names, some names adopted from Normans, Ivernic names, some partly Gaelicized-Cymric names. If anyone wants to take a crack at it, sorting out the best names for the mod, for this period, they're more than welcome. I only bothered to cull the primitive Irish names, since they were all on the end of the lists, and easiest to cut.

[GoreBag]

Not to be snarky, but shortcuts to accents:

é : alt-0233
á : alt-0225
í : alt-0237
ó: alt-0243
ú: alt-0252

They're kind of overwhelming at first, but they're second nature to me now.

About the "k": I've seen "Mac" written as "Mak" more than once, and certain surnames still in existence have a clear link to this spelling. Whether or not this should be restricted to the Scottish faction is up for debate, but it seems like a plausible determination.

[Ranika]

As I recall, 'mak' is like 'mhic'; presumably it's a bastardized form of 'mac' employed by some Picts (presumably because they were closer to the Roman church, and introduced the 'K' into their liturgy, and presumably their written language). However, it was mostly over-taken by the traditional Gaelic spellings, except in cases of isolation or individual clans descended mainly from Picts, and maintained it as a local cultural spelling.

[Magdala]

In modern Irish anyway there are several forms of Mac and Mhic and even more so with female names, Ní or Nic being the unmarried form of Mac and Mhic being the married form. Will this be taken into account? Will female charaters even be given surnames? Will there be female leaders? Some Irish systems were not exclusively patrilineal.

[Ranika]

I don't think it's possible to realistically depict female leaders (they would still take wives, and still look like men in battle; additionally, you'd not be able to ensure they'd have a female name). There are a painful lot of hardcoded issues that prevent depicting a number of old Gaelic practices appropriately (such as appropriate 'surnames', since they didn't have surnames in the modern sense, and so on).

[Nacheras]

I see in the last post of Legio that the end of the game will arrive to 1099.

My question is: have you consider include almoravids as a emerging faction?
Historically it will be logical, due to their importance at history of Africa and Spain.

[Rodion Romanovich]

No, but we're using another system for inclusion of the almoravids. Scripting will unlock the "invitation" of the almoravids, and make the al-andalus faction able to recruit almoravid units in the late part of the mod. As explained the faction limit prevents us from doing anything else than that, but I believe it's good enough.

[Nacheras]

OK. Even historically almoravids were invited but soon arrived to control almost all muslim Spain, I think your solution is quite good. If there is no other posibility.

I can provide you information about almoravid units if you have not cover that item yet. Almoravids had camels, and they developed a very advanced system to movilise great masses of warriors with discipline and order, using drum song signals. They were good tacticians. Only the famous Rodrigo Díaz, el Cid, was able to stop them, and only during a few years.

[Rodion Romanovich]

If you have good info it's very welcome ~:)

[Csatadi]

Heres the semi-final faction names listed by cultures. Where I wrote more names the first is the most possible. Please give your opinions here.

Turkish
Hazar Eli, Hazarlar =Khazars
Bulgaria =Bulgar Turks and Slavs
Mogyeriek, Hetumogyer =Hungarians

Slavic
(Velká) Morava =Great Moravia

British
Alba =Scots
Mumu, Mumainha, Eoghanachta =The Irish
Gwynedd =Wales
West Seaxe, Angle Cynedóm =Wessex

Vikings
Rus, Væringjar =Varagian Russia
Normannaland, Agder =Norway
Dane Mark, Danemark =Danes
Svithjod, Svea Rike =Sweden
Normans =Normanns in France

Frankish
Francia Occidentalis =Western Frankish Kingdom
Media Francia =Central Frankish Kingdom
Francia Orientalis =Eastern Frankish Kingdom
Regnum Asturicum, Asturias =North of Spain

Greek/Roman
Basileía Romaíon =Byzantine Empire

Muslim
al-Imāra al-Umawiyya =Muslim Spain
al-Khilāfa al-Abbāsiyya =North Afrika and Egypt

[oj121]

Heres the semi-final faction names listed by cultures. Where I wrote more names the first is the most possible. Please give your opinions here.

Turkish
Hazar Eli, Hazarlar =Khazars
Bulgaria =Bulgar Turks and Slavs
Mogyeriek, Hetumogyer =Hungarians

Slavic
(Velká) Morava =Great Moravia

British
Alba =Scots
Mumu, Mumainha, Eoghanachta =The Irish
Gwynedd =Wales
Wessex, Kingdom of Englisc =Wessex

Vikings
Rus, Væringjar =Varagian Russia
Normannaland, Agder =Norway
Dane Mark, Danemark =Danes
Svithjod, Svea Rike =Sweden
Normans =Normanns in France

Frankish
Francia Occidentalis =Western Frankish Kingdom
Media Francia =Central Frankish Kingdom
Francia Orientalis =Eastern Frankish Kingdom
Regnum Asturicum, Asturias =North of Spain

Greek/Roman
Basileía Romaíon =Byzantine Empire

Muslim
al-Imāra al-Umawiyya =Muslim Spain
al-Khilāfa al-Abbāsiyya =North Afrika and Egypt



Perfect.Completely looking forward to reestablishing Arthurs kingdom. Long live the Welsh Princes!!!!!!

[Stormy]

Wonderful list. I counted 20 factions, you still have 1 more faction left, I wonder which faction it will it be. ;)

[Csatadi]

al-Imāra al-Umawiyya =Muslim Spain
In the history the Muslim part of the Iberian peninsula called to Al-Andalus. Another possibility is al-Dawla al-Umawiyya =the state of the Ummayads. This last one is more right if the player conquer e.g. the Frank states the whole empire cannot be Al-Andalus.

[Nacheras]

In the history the Muslim part of the Iberian peninsula called to Al-Andalus. Another possibility is al-Dawla al-Umawiyya =the state of the Ummayads. This last one is more right if the player conquer e.g. the Frank states the whole empire cannot be Al-Andalus.

Sorry, but with this mind you must change the name of Asturias too.
Asturias was a little territory northern Spain.
So if Asturian player conquer the frank states the whole empire cannot be Asturias.

I support Al-Andalus. It was the real name.

[Csatadi]

Ok.

[palissa]

MM, you ever thought to insert a new faction when another disappear?
I dont even know if this is possible, maybe having to close the game and reopen using batch files at a certain date.
Let say in year 1000, some faction will enter like slav do in BI, taking place of a extinct faction (or deleting another faction, i dont know).
Just an idea, i dont even know if can be implemented.
Bye

[Csatadi]

I can imagine it works - althrough your idea is unusual - because a faction can appear by an event and there is a destroyed faction event, too.
But both the disappearing and the appearing factions would count in the faction limit.

[palissa]

Csatadi, I read about it in some other mod,
they wil ltry with some batch file to allow player to play more factions,
dropping the deleted faction, or another faction in the rebel army.
Maybe that can be done here too
(I truly forget what mod was that one :))
Bye

[GoreBag]

Sorry, but with this mind you must change the name of Asturias too.
Asturias was a little territory northern Spain.
So if Asturian player conquer the frank states the whole empire cannot be Asturias.

What? Why not?

[Nacheras]

What? Why not?

I was simply following the Csatadi argument...

BTW I don´t agree with him.

[Tjuguskeggr]

Here is your problem....

You must secide if they came from a Norwegian/Dane kingdom, or Norwegian/Dane area.

As you can se here, sometimes the viken (oslofjord area) was under Norwegian roule, and sometimes under Danes.

If they came from an area witch today is Norway, but rouled by a Dane king, were they then Norwegians or Danes?

http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/scandinavia/denmark.htm

http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/scandinavia/norway.htm

-Skel-

I think he must be considered a Norwegian, considering his father was the jarl of Mæri. and..


Rögnvaldur Mærajarl var hinn mesti ástvin Haralds konungs og konungur virti hann mikils.
([Hrólfs father] was a great friend of king Harald and much respected by the king.)

And this being king Haraldr hárfagri (fairhair?/hairfair?).(of norway)


That said, nordic peoples were all called danes by many foreign scholars so
even Icelanders conisdered themselves "danes"... in laws written as late as 13th century, being able to speak danish tounge was a necessity in order to sit in a jury. And that is before we got a Danish king or any king for that matter...

[Csatadi]

Somebody once gave a tip to naming the normanns.
Norþmen would be the right form?

[Tjuguskeggr]

Somebody once gave a tip to naming the normanns.
Norþmen would be the right form?

As far as I know, Norþmen is the olde englisc spelling, but in olde norse it would be Norðmen, or even Norðmenn... however spelling wasn't always completely fixed, and it might be more difficult to diffrentiate from Norwegians who were also called Norðmenn(and even still are by certain people).

In the "Haraldssaga Hárfagra" Normandy is even called Norðmandí. However it also says its a later term.

(the ð is a softer version of the þ, currently pronounced similarly to th in "the", while the Þ is like "thousand")

[Csatadi]

The fresh list. Where I wrote more names the first is the most possible. Please give your opinions here.

Turkish
Hazar Eli, Hazarlar =Khazars
Bulgaria =Bulgar Turks and Slavs
Mogyeriek, Hetumogyer =Hungarians

Slavic
Velká Morava =Great Moravia

British
Alba =Scots
Mumu, Mumainha, Eoghanachta =The Irish
Gwynedd =Wales
West Seaxe, Angle Cynedóm =Wessex, English Kingdom

Vikings
Rus, Væringjar =Varagian Russia
Normannaland, Agder =Norway
Dane Mark, Danemark =Danes
Svithjod, Svea Rike =Sweden
Norðmenn =Normans in France

Frankish
Francia Occidentalis =Western Frankish Kingdom
Media Francia =Central Frankish Kingdom
Francia Orientalis =Eastern Frankish Kingdom
Regnum Asturicum, Asturias =North of Spain

Greek/Roman
Basileía Romaíon =Byzantine Empire

Muslim
Al-Andalus =Muslim Spain
al-Khilāfa al-Abbāsiyya =Abbaside Caliphate

-------
Tjuguskeggr: Thanks!

[almazor]

hi all,this is a suggestion:between 842 and 1099 the muslim world was divided between 3 khilaphates:the ommayades who ruled muslim spain and a large part of morroco and abbassides who ruled the east but booth are sunnite,but a strong power raise the fatimide they were shiite ismailite,the appear in the modern algeria and establish there capital city firstble in al mahdiya in modern tunisia after that and uder the caliphe 'al mo'z li dine allah al fatimi' they build a new city 'al kahira' cairo in egypt.and this power ruled the north affica ,egypt ,paslestine ,jordani and syria.this is my first suggestion.
the second ,the almoravides they were from the sahara very fanatic for islam 'sanhaja' a berber tribe they were composed by the lamtuna ,messoufa and gudala.
they ruled boot sahra ,morroco and muslim spain and a large part of algeria.
i think adding almoravides with there unit camels,the used an enormous masse of infantry javiline man ,pikeman,they use drummer who send ordders to other part of army for (attaking,deffiding,stading) and olso terrify the enemies,and the famous black guardswho play a great role in zallaqa(one of then injurred alphonso the VI.

[beauchamp]

really, Interesting. I awlawys thought that Shi'ism spread more to the east (seeing that Husayn died at Karbala)and formed such sects as the Nizaris. And I thought that the Almoravids were the last of the Ummayads and were reformed later by the Almohads. Honestly, I don't remember :embarassed:.

[almazor]

no relation between the almoravides and ommayades and almohades;but the almohades take marrakesch from the almoravides in 1145 Ad,and they killed all the almoravides soldiers and population in marrakesch.waw it's very mostruous.
thanks for the replay

[beauchamp]

Don't mean to be a historidork but I was always taught that the last of the Ummayad Kaliphs went west and founded the Almoravids, or was that Al Andalus :inquisitive:?

[almazor]

ok i'm not historidoc but i read this in this web site about almoravides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almoravid
and this about umayade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad

and this about the caliphs of cordoba:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph_of_Cordoba

[beauchamp]

Aright, I get it now. So this is were the Tuaregs come from then! Oh yea, didn't mean to insult you with that, ahem, historicdork comment :laugh4:

[almazor]

no probelm

[almazor]

Originally from Tunisia, the Fatimid caliph el Moizz founded Cairo after his general Gaur conquered Egypt. When Arab clerics asked him on what authority he ruled, he pulled out his scimitar and showed it to them. In this portrait he is also apparently showing the city he founded.
http://www.worldhistoryplus.com/worldhistorypictures/10/51%5BARABS%5DA.jpg

and the abbasside caliphat harun receive a delegation from charlamagne
http://www.worldhistoryplus.com/worldhistorypictures/9/257%5BARABS%5DA.jpg
battle between arab and franks http://www.worldhistoryplus.com/worldhistorypictures/11/3%5BARABS%5DA.jpg
the battle of manzakert between the seljuks and byzance under the empror romanus
http://www.worldhistoryplus.com/worldhistorypictures/11/4%5BPER%5DA.jpg
battle crusaders against muslm
http://www.worldhistoryplus.com/worldhistorypictures/12/2%5BARABS%5DA.jpg
http://www.worldhistoryplus.com/worldhistorypictures/13/5%5BUK%5DA.jpg

[almazor]

http://www.worldhistoryplus.com/worldhistorypictures/14/2%5BSER%5DA.jpg

[beauchamp]

Wow! those are some awsome screens, altough the arabs look a bit scrawney...

[Rodion Romanovich]

I agree, really cool images, I'm thinking about making one of them my desktop background as a matter of fact ~:). Maybe we should change Great Moravia into Fatimids or Seldjuks after all ~:) I'd like to hear what edyz thinks about that idea... I think I'm in favor of Fatimids more than Seldjuks though, because they could be included from start or almost from start...

[almazor]

yes i agree with you,and for the seljuks no probleme,in the end of the modder the abbasside can recruits seljuks units and we can add an agent "the sultan" who have the control of armies and the empires and the caliphat who have only a moral controle.
or the abbasside kaliphat will have the same controle who have the pope.declaring jihads some thing like that.
this 'i my idea but i think adding the fatimide is a good idea and olso logical.

[palissa]

I just wonder who will make all those arab units.
Check the magyar units and tell me how are going. I need more feedback and pics, and hints.

Bye

[edyzmedieval]

I say Fatimids. ~:)

We didn't get much info for Great Moravia....

Or much better: Almohad(or Almoravid) Caliphate. Full power!!!

[almazor]

i think taking fatimide or almoravides is the better choice,
but i prefere fatimide(shia who hate sunni more than others) more than the almoravides(sunni).and this is a picture of battle betwenn el cid(rodrigo diaz de bivar) and almoravides:
http://www.toysoldiers.ca/popup/WAB%20EL%20CID.jpg
almohades appears in 1145 they crush the almoravides they interred marakech in the same year and they kill the last almoravide emir.

[almazor]

image of arab units:
http://www.toysoldiers.ca/popup/ITA%206010.jpg
the siege:
http://www.toysoldiers.ca/popup/ITA%206102.jpg

[edyzmedieval]

I think that the Almoravids will suit better. ~:)

I want to hear your opinions.

[beauchamp]

I vote Almoravids, because of the Tuarges.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Ok I don't mind an Almoravids faction but I just think it'll run over Al-Andalus when it comes and then we would have done just as well with making the Al-Andalus faction become Almoravids by scripting, then we could add another faction too. At least that's what we planned all along - to have Al-Andalus begin as the Cordoba Emirate and then by scripting "become" the Almoravids. Thoughts on this?

[edyzmedieval]

Oooohhh....

Then we need another faction. Fatimids?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, Fatimids, Great Moravia, and Seldjuks are the main candidates seen from a historical point of view. And I personally prefer Fatimids :2thumbsup:

[edyzmedieval]

It depends also on what the public wants....Seldjuks are itneresting but they are closer to the end date of the mod. :book:

[almazor]

yes the seljuks appear in the end of the mod and but you can replace the abbassides by seljuks ,like al andalus and almoravides,is this a good idea ?

[Stormy]

Hmmm, The Seljuks and the Almoravides are realistic factions at the starting 'date' of AOVAF ?

I think the Abbassides and the Al Andalus are more realistic factions for the starting date, no ?

What is the starting date, btw.. :sweatdrop:

[edyzmedieval]

843 is the starting age.

Abbasids can't turn into Seldjuks. Abbasids dissapeared completely in the 13th century. Fatimids descended from Abbasids.

[almazor]

you can do one thing,make the abbassides under the protectorat of the seljuks they will have only the provence of baghdad,and the seljuks controls all the other provence,my idea is making the caliphat of baghdad like the pope of rome the same role,the abbasside declare jihad against christiens or pagan,and the possibility of ex-com.

[Harmageddon]

It was the Danish Viking Rollo who sighed Paris and of whom William the conqueror is descended!

“The Duchy of Normandy, originally a part of France, was in 911 AD granted to the Norwegian viking Hrolf the Ganger as tribute after a several years long siege of Paris.”

“Hrolf the Ganger, the founder of Normandy, was according to the legend son of a Norwegian Jarl, and his cognomen, meaning "the walker", was attributed to him because he was so large that no horse could carry him.”

This is all wrong!

Dudo of St. Quentin: De moribus et actis primorum Normanniæ Ducum

Om danerfyrsten Rollos fordrivelse fra danernes rige og kampe for at vinde nyt land (ca. 1015) oversat og kommenteret af Erling Albrectsen, Odense Universitetsforlag

According to this old text (De moribus et actis primorum Normanniæ Ducum) translated to Danish by Erling Albrectsen from Odense university, Normandy was founded by the Danish Viking Rollo who got it from the france king Karl.

“Franken er i knæ, og kongen presses af sit folk for at indgå fred med danerne. Rollo går med til fred mod at få kong Karls datter, samt Normandiet (fra Floden Epte i Øst og til havet i Vest) og Bretagne. Han døbes år 912 under navnet Robert og går i gang med at genopbygge landet – kirker, klostre, forsvarsanlæg. Fem år før sin død overdrager han magten til sin søn, Vilhelm I. Han dør formentligt 932”

Here it says that France is at its knees and is forced to make peace with the Danes (Dacerne - not the Norwegian) Rollo will make peace on the condition that he get Carls daughter and the duchy of Normandy. 932 he is baptised and gets the Christian name Robert. Now he rebuild the land and build churches. Five years before his death he gives the throne to his son Wilhelm I. Rollo properly dies in 932.

Another source, Vilhelm of Jumièges: Guillaume de Jumièges Gesta Normannorum also translated by Erling Albrectsen.

Her it also says that Rollo is Danish

”Faderen sendte ham straks efter til Bayeux og overgav ham til sin hærfører, Boso, til opfostring, for at han der kyndigt oplært i det danske sprog kunne give sine fra udlandet kommende folk passende svar i samtale [ut ibi lingua eruditus Danica, suis exterisque hominibus sciret apte dare responsa]”

Her it is clear that Rollo is Danish because he sends his son to the city Bayeux to learn Danish (Danica) language. Under the protection of Boso.

In the same text:

”Da imidlertid den store fyrstes tapperhed og fromhed blev kendt gennem hans ry, ankom kong Harald af Danmark [Danorum rex], fordrevet fra riget af sin søn, Svend, med tresindstyve skibe fyldte med våbnede besætninger til Normandiet, med bøn om bistand. Den mægtige og ædelt tænkende hertug modtog ham med tilbørlig hæder og overlod ham grevskabet Coutances som fast støttepunkt, indtil han efter at have bygget skibe og gjort hæren fuldtallig og stærkere med øget antal mænd kunne drage tilbage til sit tabte rige.”

Rollos reputation was so great that king Harald of Denmark (Danorum rex) flied to Normandy with 60 ships after his brother Sven had taken the power in Denmark. The mighty and noble duke (Rollo) Received Harald with glory and gave him the province of Coutances until he was strong enough to return and retake the lost realm.
I
nformation from Danish History site

http://www.nomos-dk.dk/skraep/dudo2.htm

What source do you have that say Rollo is Norwegien?? Is it just because the name “Normandy” and ”Norway” looks a like??

[edyzmedieval]

Thanks.

Can you assemble a list of Danish kings?

[Harmageddon]

If you can translate my bad English I will do my best to help you …just don’t make the mod die. I hope you change the things about Normandy and Rollo soon. It’s not possible for me to find all the Danish kings (Danish kings outside Denmark – like Rollo), but I have found the kings of Denmark. Maybe later, when I am finished with the exams, I will rite the names of there women and children – as fare as possible. I really hope you will use the original Danish names. If necessary you can rite the English translation next to it.

Kings of Denmark, According to legend:


Year 300-400 Dan

Humble

Lotther

Skjold

Halvdan

Frode Fredegod

Year 400 - 500 Roar

Year 400 - 500 Helge

Year 400 - 500 Rolf Krake

? Hjarvard

Year 400 - 500 Vermund og Uffe hin Spage


About 515 Chochilaicus (Hugleik)

Ca. 710 Ogendus (Agantyr)

Ca. 710 -770 Harald Hildetand

770- ca.800 Sigfred

ca. 800 - 810 Godfred (Gøtrik)

810-812 Hemming

død 812 Sigfred II

død 812 Anulo

død 852 Harald Klak

død 814 Regindfrid

død 873 Rudolf

sidst omtalt i 873 Rorik

813 - 854 Horik I

før 857- efter 864 Horik II

873 - 887 Sigfred III

levede 873 Halvdan

890 erne Helge

ca. 910 Olaf (Olaph)

efter 910 Gyrd (Gurd)

efter 910 Gnupa (Chnob)

før 920 Sigtryg (Sigerich)

ca. 920-ca. 934 Hardeknud (Hardegon)


Kings of Denmark, According to history :

Ca. 936 - 958 Gorm den Gamle (The old) - Thyra

958 - 986 Harald Blåtand (Bluetooth) - Gunhild

986 - 1014 Svend Tveskæg (Forkbeard)

1014 - 1018 Harald II

1018 - 1035 Knud den Store (the great) - Emma

1035 - 1042 Hardeknud

1042 - 1047 Magnus den Gode (The good)

1047 - 1074 Svend Estridsen

1074 - 1080 Harald Hen

1080 - 1086 st. Knud den Hellige (The holy)

1086 - 1095 Oluf Hunger (starvation)

1095 - 1103 Erik Ejegod (The good)

1104 - 1134 Niels den gamle (The old)

1134 - 1137 Erik Emune

1137 - 1146 Erik Lam

1146 - 1157 Svend Grathe

1146 - 1157 Knud III

1157 - 1182 Valdemar den Store (The great)

1182 - 1202 Knud IV

1202 - 1241 Valdemar Sejr (The victoirous)

1241 - 1250 Erik Plovpenning (Ploughpenny)

1250 - 1252 Abel

1252 - 1259 Christoffer I

1259 - 1286 Erik Klipping

1286 - 1319 Erik Menved

1319 - 1326 Christoffer II

1326 - 1330 Valdemar III

[edyzmedieval]

Thank you very much. ~:)

[Harmageddon]

I’m glad I can help. I have not specified the information because I’m not sure what timeline you have chosen for the mod. But later if you give me the time period, I will give you some more detail, fx family information.

[Rodion Romanovich]

starts 843 AD, ends 1099 AD

[IrishArmenian]

I just want to step into the life of Brian Boru and unite Eire (sorry don't know how to make the accent) under my rule. Then go the extra mile(s) and conquer Britain, then possibly France, then Germany and then the Norse lands. that is just plan A, but I will surely have to rethink it.