View Full Version : 'Angevin Ascendancy' Faction List Discussion

The Blind King of Bohemia
09-16-2006, 00:12
The first era, 'Angevin Ascendancy', will begin in 1154, when Henry II has just ascended to the throne of England. His Empire stretches from Yorkshire to Gascony, but this is a mixed blessing. For the French, Scots and Kingdom of Gwynedd lay just beyond the borders and can strike at any moment. The French however have their own problems with the County of Toulouse in the south, where the Heretical Cathar faith has recently come to light and is spreading like wildfire - it is a danger which will need to be vanquished. In Central Europe Frederick Barbarossa will soon be crowned Holy Roman Empire and his lust for power could greatly threaten the Italian City States of Pisa and Genoa, and possibly even the Papacy.

The Kingdom of the Isles has just been hit by a civil war which has seen Somerled gain power, a fearsome ruler who may just lend cause for concern to Malcolm IV, King of Scotland. Ireland remains fiercely divided almost 150 years after the death of Brian Boru and may soon suffer more divisions thanks to the incoming Norman invasion. Elsewhere the bitter struggle between the Christians of Iberia and the Moors of North Africa continues, with Abd al-Mu'min leading the new Almohad dynasty, who have only recently broken the Almoravids power. Further afield, changes are afoot in Central America while the Norse settlers in Greenland continue to prosper, developing commercial relations with the local Eskimo population. These are very turbulent times where only the strongest will prosper.


Holy Roman Empire
County of Toulouse
Kingdom of Mann
County of Hainaut
Kingdom of Gwynedd
Kingdom of Deheubarth
Kingdom of the Isles
Ui Neills of Ulster
Kingdom of Connaught
Algonquin Tribes
Dorset Eskimo
Lordship of Galloway
Norse Atlantic Colonies
Sosso Empire of Kaniaga
South-East Mississippian Tribes
Chimu Empire
Toltec Empire

So as you can see, only if we can add factions will the map be extended to the East and far to the South. Please feel free to discuss this preliminary list, if any powers should be added/removed etc.

The Blind King of Bohemia
09-23-2006, 11:03
Here are the planned emblems for the new factions, along with some revised ones:



County of Toulouse


Duchy of Brittany


County of Hainaut
















Kingdom of the Isles


Ui Neills




Algonquin Tribes


Dorset Eskimo




North Atlantic Colonies


Sosso Empire


North American South Indian Tribal Grouping (TBD)




Chimu Empire


Toltec Empire


Any help or suggestions would be great.

Afonso I of Portugal
09-26-2006, 01:44
It would be nice if you add this Almohad flag from 1212. However, i must admit it is hard to do it.

https://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1395/almohadflag1kf1.th.jpg (https://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=almohadflag1kf1.jpg)

The Blind King of Bohemia
09-26-2006, 10:23
I think it would be very much possible, I might use that or I'll probably end up doing it as one of their numerous heraldic devices in battle.

Afonso I of Portugal
09-27-2006, 21:44
Fine. Good luck with your mod!

10-18-2006, 14:18
I love that you're using the Nunavut flag as the Inuit symbol.

I grew up in northern Canada (near the Arctic Circle, actually), so I can probably help with, at least, researching the Inuit faction(s), and can provide some info, if you need it, with their interaction with the Vikings who came over.

That said, I have a concern. Well, two, really, but one of them has been said about every 'barbarian' faction: the Inuit were never any kind of 'nation'. That said, I recognize the needs of the game.

Second issue: the Inuit never had any concept of a soldier or a military. When they fought, they used their hunting spears and knives, which would mostly have been made of stone. The Inuit never really got out of the Stone Age until European settlement in the past couple centuries. They would have had some metal tools and weapons procured in trade, but that's it. They don't even have words for things like 'axe', and the concept of a sword just doesn't exist in their language.

My point with all of that is... there are records of the Inuit fighting with and wiping out Viking settlers in Greenland, so they were not unaware of the concept of war, unlike some accounts, but, as I said, they had no military or soldiery of any kind. Just hunters. And they only used one weapon, the spear. So did you have any thoughts on how they would function on the battlefield, what their armies would consist of?

Next...thing. The First Nations living in northern Quebec/Labrador and Newfoundland were neither Inuit nor Algonquin, who lived mostly in the Great Lakes and St Lawrence area. You could fold the Quebec-area Nations into the Algonquin, but the natives of Newfoundland were a completely seperate group. Not that Newfoundland exactly needs to be accurately represented... ;)

If the map does get pushed out to the North American West Coast, I would say you'd need a southern First Nation for the Texas/New Mexico area, a western First Nation for the west coast and a northwestern First Nation for the upper British Columbia/Yukon Territory area. And, preferably, a Nation for the Great Plains. Even that is leaving huge areas empty...



The Blind King of Bohemia
10-18-2006, 19:29
Good post there. So the flag's okay then? I know the chances of it being used back then were slim but it was the only real one I could find!

I know the Inuit will be tough to implement but I'll do my best to make them as accurate as possible in unit terms. I have a couple of great depictions of them in a book; I'll scan the pics in at some point. I know they weren't really unified but they will be quite numerous and I want to make it very difficult for the Norse Colonies to prosper or any other invader to easily take the lands.

I have a couple of North America researchers but if you want to be an Inuit researcher that would be great. I can PM you with the details should you so wish.

10-19-2006, 05:11
The Nunavut flag will work fine, I'm sure, or even any representation of an inukshuk, really. It's the most iconic symbol of the Inuit that comes to mind, beyond the igloo.

Sure, I'd be happy to be the Inuit researcher. Just let me know what you'd need from me.



10-20-2006, 21:41
Same as posted on TWC:

In 1154 there is no independent kingdom of Connacht. Ireland was under the collective rule of three royal houses (Connacht was part of the territories controlled by the Ui Conchobair, which also included west Meath in their region, but they were loyal to the high king, relatively, even though he'd replaced their own). Rebellion against the high king had slowed greatly to the extent that the second-to-last high king was removed from office largely after his own soldiers abandonned him for having threatened the legislation of the Oenach and illegally arrested the king of Ulster and blinded him after guaranteeing his good behaviors to the Church, and instead installed a member of the Ui Conchobair family as king (king Ruadri, son of the third-to-last king). That was Muirchertach MacLochlainn (the MacLochlainn's being one of the three houses; they were descendants of the Ui Neill, but the Ui Neill as a mass had lost much power outside of Tir Eogain), who would be king at the time. He did a number of ill advised moves, until he literally had no more than sixteen supporters, and was killed with all of them for treason toward Ireland, and for breaking solemn oaths made to the Church. Ruadri came to power after that, and ruled all Ireland, but faced the sedition of Diarmait MacMurchada, who fled to England when he learned even his own vassals didn't support him. Ruadri, in that time, exercised a united, full kingship (so had Muirchertach, and Ruadri's father before Muirchertach), which came to an end with the invasion of Norman and Welsh adventurers funded by the king of England to win the kingship for Diarmait (who died during the ensuing conflict). Making little headway, Ruadri and Henry signed a deal, that Henry would recieve Dublin and the territory around it, and several Norman families got rights to settlement (though they would then be vassals of Irish kings, which led to their rapid adoption of Gaelic culture, and where names like 'FitzOsmond' and such emerged from), and Ruadri had to surrender his title of 'Scotorum Imperator' (though Henry wasn't allowed to take it, he had no right to it, so the title just died), and instead became the 'King of Gaels'. However, based on the chronicles of the period, he was still respected as king of all Ireland, such as described in 1198 in the Annals of the Four Masters, when they mention his death;

"King of Connaught and of all Ireland, both the Irish and the English, died among the canons at Cong, after exemplary penance, victorious over the world and the devil. His body was conveyed to Clonmacnoise, and interred at the north side of the altar of the great church." - The inherent irony here is, while Ruadri was still recieving submissions, it was in Connacht itself (the kingdom he ruled directly) that he did not, because his disallusioned brother Cathal had seized much of it (Breifne mainly) out of anger.

The symbol of the Irish kingdom as a whole was three gold crowns on a blue field. Each crown represented one of the three noble houses, and the blue symbolized an intent for peace between them, and joint rulership of Ireland. It was not 'fiercely divided', nor was it even divided initially after Brian Boru. Mael Sechnaill had legitimate right as king of all Ireland (accepting tributes as well from the heads of the Isle of Mann), and it was only divided afterward under his sons and vassals who argued about who the tanist should have been (legally, it should have been one of Brian's family, but his full name is lost, and he never succeeded). However, Ireland was in a process of unification for most of the period, with the arguments steadily dying down from wars, to border wars, until it was mostly political backstabbing and honor fights (a clan war-esque arrangement that was perfectly legal to settle a dispute out of court with minimal bloodshed). It's hardly fierce or bitterly divided by 1154, and experienced a period of relative wealth due to unity.

Several problems actually emerged due to unity. The aforementioned expulsion of Diarmait, but even when he returned, Ruadri had the three main armies broken up into several groups at the time to begin accepting instruction from French and Byzantine (the Irish had been very warm with eastern Romans since the early Christian period in Ireland, as the west Romans didn't like the Irish, they sought contacts with the east Romans to get books to copy) military specialists on their way to Ireland, so his army was spread over the island in different places for training. That was a unity issue. Because Ruadri's technical authority was as the head of the military (Gaelic kings traditionally exhibit little authority over much but the military and diplomacy, except they can vote in the Oenach, which worked like a senate, but was staffed by elected judges), he felt the need existed to modernize it (which is kind of ironic; about a century prior, the Irish were actually on the relative cutting edge of military learning in western Europe due to contacts with the Byzantines, and necessity from fighting the Norse; however, the process of unification led them away from constantly developing the army and into a period of stagnation), which then proceeded to open him up for the invasions of the Norman mercenaries supporting Diarmait. Had Ireland been less unified, that would not have happened, and Diarmait's adventurers would have faced regional armies all in far excess numerically than the Normans possessed (Ireland wasn't some poorly populated backwater; despite being 40% the size of Britain, it was roughly as populated in much of the middle ages, meaning it had a denser population, though they tended to live in villages, punctuated by forts and only a handful of cities, mostly captured from the Norse except for a handful). There was enough unity though that prior to the invasion, Ruadri's father had brought in Byzantine military planners and half-copied a Byzantine system, dividing the Ireland up into many 'Tir an Trecha Cet' (Lands of Thirty Hundreds). A Trecha Cet was originally a military designation for an upper regimental grouping, but in this period was also used then to designate land areas that could quickly bring together 3000 soldiers. It was still in use until the worst part of the anarchic collapse in the mid-to-late 1200s (Ireland didn't just erupt in anarchy right away, it took a while after the invasion for that), and was reinstated in the 1300, though by the 1400s it was gone again, with the armies more or less replaced just by the levied warbands (Ceithernn, from which comes 'Kern') and mercenaries (Buanna, like the galloglaigh); the professional soldier class (Cliarthairi) was almost completely gone, though the aristocratic class was still around, but much smaller.

At the least of Ireland, Connacht shouldn't be called Connacht, it was part of the wider territory of the Ui Conchobair family, and the Ui Neill were subverted by their own sept, the MacLochlainn family, which controlled Ulster and Meath and eastern Leinster (and was not called the 'Ui Neill' by anyone, it was quite explicitly supplanting the Ui Neill, which was only re-affirmed with the Norman invasion actually strengthening the Ui Neill in a few ways, until the de Burgh's seized Ulster; after the de Burgh earldoms, the interregnums of the earldom often left the Ui Neill in control of the region). The rest of Ireland was under the southern Ui Brioin (Brian Boru's descendants). It's just, I think you could probably do better with a freed faction space by having a single Ireland in this period; if it were on a more focused map, it'd make more sense to have the three royal houses as seperate factions maybe, but in this period, it seems it'd be more realistic (especially by 1154) just to have the land of Ireland as a single faction with it prone to rebellions.

Also of note would be that the Norman invasion wasn't a foregone conclusion. It wasn't well supported and was done in part with arm twisting by Diarmait of Leinster, expelled for sedition, and escaped to England. Henry owed him a good deal for having used his navy, but had never paid him. Diarmait used his call on the debt to finance an army of Norman and Welsh mercenaries, initially unassociated with England itself. Had the venture failed, England would have wanted no part in culpability for it, and wished to maintain good relations with Ireland; at the time, relations were fairly lukewarm, but Ruadri was a friend of Henry, and Henry was hoping to use him to help invade France, giving a chance for Ruadri to land an invasion force near Brittany, which he expressed interest in conquering at several points in his private letters (though his greater concern was to conquer the Gaelic highlanders of Scotland by exploiting their growing disallusionment over progressively more anglicized kings ruling the country, and use that also as posturing to invade the isles; the long term goal of the kingdom had been since about 1140 the recreation of the empire of Niall; Ireland, 'Pictland', the western portion of Wales, and some continental territories Niall of the Nine Hostages had controlled during the beginning of the dark ages). The success of the invasion, and death of Diarmait, gave the English an opening to declare intentions to simply conquer Ireland (which didn't go well, Henry got Dublin and East Meath, and very weak overtures of submission from the Irish nobles, and had to agree that Ruadri was still king of the Irish Gaels, as already noted; it should also be noted though, Henry hated Strongbow and didn't really care to support him in Ireland, and still maintained a preference toward Ruadri).

Also of interest is the last few kings all expressed desires to launch expeditions in Iberia to help the Iberian Christians against the Moors (Gaels claimed, not incorrectly, ancestry in northern Iberia, and viewed it as a moral imperative to fight in Iberia; there were both Scots and Irish involved in the Reconquista due to that; they were also involved in the First and Second Crusades to varying extents, rarely in great numbers, but more in the first as they saw it as a way to improve relations with the Byzantines). Ireland also held very warm relationships with the Byzantines, which should certainly not be overlooked. Ireland had been redistricted with Byzantine help so that each division of land was capable of raising 3000 men (a 'tir an trecha cet'); the trecha cet had been in use for centuries though, as a military division. Irish priests worked in Greece and Asia Minor for various Byzantine nobles, and even after Ireland officially joined the Roman church (the second reason for joining the first crusade was to show loyalty to the Pope, as Ireland had it's own liturgical rite at the time), it maintained good relations with the Orthodox powers. That stemmed from way back when Ireland first converted to Christianity. They had poor relations with western Rome (having been a part of why Rome withdrew from Britain), but the east Roman empire was more than happy to trade with them. The Irish took in thousands of pieces of literature and copied them, and sent back books of poetry, green marble (not found outside Ireland), and other gifts. They maintained such relationships well on, until Ireland utterly collapsed in anarchy.

Incidentally, a good source would be Dáibhí O Cróinín's 'Early Medieval Ireland: 400 - 1200', which has most of the names mentioned, and the definitions of the varying ranks of kingship and explores the political systems in place up to (and shortly after) the Norman invasion.

The Blind King of Bohemia
10-20-2006, 23:16
There's several points here I'd like to reply too:

1) Whilst I'll admit I'm not the most learned scholar of Irish history I like to think I know a good bit about it, and a lot of this is old news to me.

2) I'm not personally convinced Ireland was united, despite what some sources might say I think we have to think logically some times; as we all know, we have to be very careful with sources.

3) Whether or not Ireland were on the cutting edge of military technology in the 11th century, which is debatable in itself, is irrelevant, as this begins in the mid 12th century. Norse equipment was pretty backward by the 12th century, and I really don't think the Byzantines were in any position to care about Ireland given their own problems, especially in the mid 11th century - indeed, they couldn't even manage their own army capably at that point. Furthermore, surely they would have warned the Irish of the threat of the Normans? I mean they had encountered them at Durazzo and in the First Crusade and employed them in their armies, surely they would know a lot about them and have told them how to how to at least try and counter them. As it was, they didn't know how to cope with Norman cavalry, as illustrated outside Dublin in 1171, when several hundred Norman horsemen routed O'Connor's army.

4) The stuff about the Byzantine links and Spain - is that really relevant? I mean James Douglas took Robert the Bruce's heart with him to Spain and fought with fellow Scots in the Reconquista but how can I be expected to implement these kind of things in the mod? I don't fully appreciate this as it seems as though you're going beyond the needs of the mod and trying to give me a history lesson that really needn't be given. If you want to talk about how 'advanced' Ireland was then great, but please post it in the Monastery or something where it is really far more relevant.

5) I also read your earlier thing on TWC about the Kingdom of the Isles being a 'vassal state', which I noticed you edited. For someone who seems versed in Gaelic history, this is surely a very obtuse view. Their allegiance in this period would wane between the Norse and Scots of hundreds of years and even then they weren't really controlled by anybody. The only times they were was during James IV, and even when he died it just ran into chaos again. And being as Somerled met a similar force of Scottish-Norman cavalry at Renfrew before the Norman invasion of Ireland with essentially a force who in terms of equipment would have been fairly similar, if not more advanced than the Irish and were comprehensively defeated also, one has to conclude that really the heavy mounted cavalry was always going to dominate the Celtic nations in a SET battle - not ambushes keep in mind - till at least the late 13th/early 14th century.

10-20-2006, 23:27
The Kingdom of the Isles thing was from misreading the date, actually, I editted it IN initially cause I thought I'd misread the date, and then realized I hadn't misread it before, and instead misread it the second time, so, editted it back out.

And I don't know how much of it would seem relevant, just offering for what it's worth and if any of it could be relevant, just wanted it to be there. I'm aware a lot of what they had in the 1200s was backwards, but they were attempting to catch back up, which IS relevant if they're to develop over time absent of Norman intervention. I don't know how it would be used. Also, if you don't want a united Ireland, I'd still recommend you don't use the name Ui Neill at least, since the royal house was MacLochlainn, not the Ui Neill (the house included the Ui Neill, MacLochlainn as the most powerful family, the Ui Morda, etc.), and if you're using the royal houses, it'd be Ui Conchobair, not Connacht, since the Ui Conchobair also ruled western Meath and portions of north Munster.

10-21-2006, 17:15
The Kingdom of the Isles thing was from misreading the date, actually, I editted it IN initially cause I thought I'd misread the date, and then realized I hadn't misread it before, and instead misread it the second time, so, editted it back out.

And I don't know how much of it would seem relevant, just offering for what it's worth and if any of it could be relevant, just wanted it to be there. I'm aware a lot of what they had in the 1200s was backwards, but they were attempting to catch back up, which IS relevant if they're to develop over time absent of Norman intervention. I don't know how it would be used. Also, if you don't want a united Ireland, I'd still recommend you don't use the name Ui Neill at least, since the royal house was MacLochlainn, not the Ui Neill (the house included the Ui Neill, MacLochlainn as the most powerful family, the Ui Morda, etc.), and if you're using the royal houses, it'd be Ui Conchobair, not Connacht, since the Ui Conchobair also ruled western Meath and portions of north Munster.

A lot of it seems completely made up. ruaidhrí's invasion force near brittany? with what ships? his coastal ones? and i would never call the state of ireland united. the title rí erenn was only rarely used without the suffix co freabra (with opposition). it took only the best of kings to force all ireland to submit at any one time, and even then not for a few years or more. the only one who eventually succeeded in ensuring no opposition could successfully rise against him was ruaidhrí ó concobair which unfortunately lead to his downfall as one of the former provinicial kings mac murchadha sought aid from a foreign source.

as for 1154 uí chonchobair did not control western meath. they tried to. remember conchobar? he was placed by his father on the throne of meath and they subsequently assasinated him? admittedly toirdelbach frequenlty divided and paritioned the province, but never seemed to have conquered it. in 1154 breifne, part of connacht, was part of the federation that formed against him, so his control in his own province was always in doubt. i know of no sway by the uí chonchobair over north munster. they had divided that province for strategic purposes, but never claimed anything other than submission from the province.

the uí néill is still correct terminology at this stage. the royal house was meic lochlainn, but the sept name was uí néill from niall noígialach, whereas the other house uí néill, rivals to the mac lochlainn for the kingship of in tuaiscert
claimed ancestry from niall glundubh in the 9th century. i think the best name would be in tuaiscert for this province however.

muicheartach's downfall was due only to his blinding of his ally eochaid mac dhúinnshléibhe of the ulaid and ruaidhrí capitalised on such animosity and overthrew him taking the throne. i have heard nothing of church violations or violating the laws of the oenach? which laws were these anyway?
ruaidhrí definitely tried to initiate a full united kingship but he still faced rebellion from tuadhmumhan for a time, even though he suppressed it adequately. but he felt the need to institute laws for the governance of ireland in 1167 at athboy, indicating he had gone further and almost institiuting an embryonic parliament.

as far as cutting edge of military technology goes, u are unfortunately way off. ireland hadn't the metallurgical industry to keep up with its neighbours. armour was restricted to the upper classes, there was little archery (but definitely some), horsemanship was light, stirrupless, and lances held overarm not under. perhaps u could say anything u could find in europe could be found in ireland, but it was certainly a question of scale. admittedly irish kings preferred to maintain standing armies as opposed to feudal levies, and so were probably a bit more professional in that respect, but its doubtful that made a difference on the field.

ruaidhrí never held the title imperator scottorum, that was a title of brian boroimhe's concoction. he was happy enough with rí érenn can fresabra. the papal grant was lord of ireland, and he may have held the crown of ireland in the pope's treasury, if the rumours are true that donnchadh mac briain gave it to him while on pilgrimage to rome in 1064??

Sun of Chersonesos
11-24-2006, 16:25

i'm useless at any sort of devlopment whatsoever. but one question; have you just begun this project or are yo somewhat in the middle of the timescale? and if in the middle (pretty much) when will you expect release?

furthermore, given the history points placed in this history discussion of Ireland and whatnot, it would appear that it would be safe in saying that i agree with BKB on the inaccuracy issue of Ireland. I do not believe that it is necessary to be arguing about The kingdoms of Ireland due to the Byzantines. Any communication they may or may not have had between them is somewhat irrelevant and there is no necessity to begin questionning The factions of Ireland when the team may or may not be in the middle of development.


The Blind King of Bohemia
11-24-2006, 17:43
Well its only at the research stage at the moment as we cannot mod the game until the patch comes out and the pak extractor is released. As for release, well it will be done period by period, but I can't really put a timescale on it.

Jasper The Builder
11-13-2007, 07:15
Owain Gwynedd, Prince of Gwynedd 1137-70, was born circa 1109. In 1137 he succeeded his father Gruffydd ap Cynan (1081-1137) to the kingdom of Gwynedd, which covered most of north Wales. While England was engaged in civil war, Owain used his skill as statesman and soldier to extend his frontiers. In 1157 Henry II led his first campaign against Owain, but it ended in a truce. He was required to do homage to Henry but it was not long before Owain was acting with complete independence. When Madog ap Maredudd died in 1160, he attacked Powys and extended his influence to the east. Six years later, the Council of Woodstock attempted to reduce the Welsh princes from client status to that of dependent vassalage, and the subsequent uprising was led by Owain and Rhys ap Gruffydd of south Wales. Henry's second attempt at subduing Wales failed ignominiously and left Owain free to capture Basingwerk and Rhuddlan castles (1166-67). In 1168 he set foot on negotiations with Louis VII of France to build an alliance between Gwynedd and France against their common enemy. It was a course which required great finesse and firm judgement. In one direction it pointed to a policy which would be used to good effect by later rulers of Gwynedd, the search for recognition and an alliance in Europe. Having openly defied Henry in 1168 by offering to help Louis, Owain maintained his independent position until his death. He left behind him a reputation of wisdom and magnanimity.

russia almighty
12-25-2007, 05:02
This might be stupid but how are any of the N.American factions going to win against a focused European attempt on them ?

I'm assuming the Norse Colonies are going to have EXTREMELY small armies

04-23-2008, 09:33
I don't know if your going for accuracy, but there never was a "Toltec Empire"(atleast that we know of) There's debate of whether they were an acutal ethnic group, or just a product of Aztec myth.