If I play as Harald Godwinson, am I just going to get pumped like in RL?
Cause if I have to fight two battles I'll just lose and it'll defeat the purpose of having Harald in the game at all.
If I play as Harald Godwinson, am I just going to get pumped like in RL?
Cause if I have to fight two battles I'll just lose and it'll defeat the purpose of having Harald in the game at all.
His jest will savour but of shallow wit, When thousands weep more than did laugh at it.
Henry V - Shakespeare
This game is entirely based on making a history that your (and the ai's) decisions influence. The game starts before the battle so Harald will not always die at Hastings.
Check out my CKDV AARs "The Kingdom of Aarquitania- Alternate History with DVIP"
"Awesome AARquitania: Reborn! Alternate History with DVIP"
Killed by friendly fire after being captured in blue emu's forum game "Ad Astra"
You'll be able to decide whether to fight those two battles, or let the invaders take a couple Baronies before you bring the full might of Anglo-Saxon England down on them.Originally Posted by sskrypteia
Nick
Or you could apply some meta-knowledge and try not to make their mistakes~? Do what the more intelligent members of the English nobility wished (I forget which of his relatives. Brother?) and let attrition do much of the work for them versus the Norman army instead of being all "Gotta honourably assemble in the field against them" and shite! I don't recall the details, but apparently they had quite a solid plan that likely could've made it disastrous for the Normans - albeit very unpleasant for the country itself for the time being, as inevitably is the case with such plans. I think the Norman Centuries podcast had something on it, so I'll try to find the episode n' give it a listen to refresh my memories.
What I wanna know is, is it ingame that one can invade a country with a low-legitimacy king, fight 2 battles, kill that king, and then win the entire kingdom? That seems like something that the game can't support, so I have a funny feeling that from the pre-Norman start, we will almost never see Saxon England fall.
I know I believe in nothing, but it is my nothing
Cogito Ergo Sum
I have had that suspicion for a while. If you wanna play Norman England, start on 1 January 1067William had a claim on the English throne and the royal demesne likely, but not on all the Saxon-held lands, which he took historically by hook and by crook and gave to his "companions"--that's what all these guys were fighting for, after all.
But if you start at the earliest date, anything could happen. Harald Hardrada could take and keep Northumbria and York. William could fail utterly. From recent released media, we have seen two interesting outcomes from the devs: (1) from the E3 video, Philippe I Capet calls out his levies and invades Normandy--what happens when the King of France occupies all of William's lands--though I wonder why Normandy is not at this point considered part of France and thus a French vassal? and (2) from the last DD: Harald Hardrada's Norwegians are besieging York and it is January 1067, meaning the war of the English succession (or however it is called) could drag on for a while. Harold Godwinson could try to ally with Scotland or find other allies, retreat westward and regroup, hire mercenaries at whatever the cost, come on if you are the player, a war of attrition will tend to be in your favor. I just won a war in CK1 as Kingdom of Leon in 1078 against France, Germany, and all the Iberian Muslim states. Not that it will be possible to do in CK2, as easily at least.
Works in Progress for CK2:
The Matter of Britain, an Arthurian overhaul for Crusader Kings II.
Expansion #1: Lord of the Manor - Manage Your Demesne ("The Republic" DLC required)
Expansion #2: Courts and Titles - Knighthood, Chivalry, and All That (A "Legacy of Rome" add-on)
Indeed, if you are playing as Harold Godwinson and manage to either defeat or outlast both Normandy and Norway, then you are in a truly enviable diplomatic position.
Normandy and Norway are surrounded by rivals and would both be governed by their former rulers' inexperienced teenage sons, the King of France and the Holy Roman Emperor are also both teenagers, the Count of Flanders is dependent on you for his income through the textile trade, the King of Scotland is distracted fighting other enemies, the King of Leinster (and sometime High King of Ireland) is your staunch ally, half of Wales are your vassals and the other half doesn't want to get on your bad side, and the King of Denmark is your first cousin.
You're poised to be on top of the northern European political scene for at least the next little while.
Good point, Alexander. If only Harold had enough children to make himself by 1100 "the Grandfather of Europe," eh?
Queen Edith was pregnant at the time (with Harold and Ulf it turned out historically), and he had six children with his more danico wife Edith Swannesha. Plus his brothers' children. We shall see. I look forward to your England AAR come the spring, my friend.
Works in Progress for CK2:
The Matter of Britain, an Arthurian overhaul for Crusader Kings II.
Expansion #1: Lord of the Manor - Manage Your Demesne ("The Republic" DLC required)
Expansion #2: Courts and Titles - Knighthood, Chivalry, and All That (A "Legacy of Rome" add-on)
Thanks very much. As you say, House Godwine was already growing quite large--Harold was poised to be the pater patriae of a very large new English royal family. Because it's pertinent to the discussion, I'm linking in the House Godwine family tree from my Saxon AAR Aethellan (still in-progress, to be transferred over to CK2 once it's out). This represents the House of Godwine in 1066, following an Anglo-Saxon victory at Hastings. Please pardon the rather large size of the chart--as you can see from the amount of people involved, the size really couldn't be avoided.Good point, Alexander. If only Harold had enough children to make himself by 1100 "the Grandfather of Europe," eh?
Queen Edith was pregnant at the time (with Harold and Ulf it turned out historically), and he had six children with his more danico wife Edith Swannesha. Plus his brothers' children. We shall see. I look forward to your England AAR come the spring, my friend.
(The only additions I made for story purposes in the AAR were to give a byname to Harold's second wife Edith, and to grant a couple of earldoms to Harold's kinsman Hakon and Wulfnoth, who are only just rescued from being hostages in Normandy. Everything else is based on my prolonged research into this family.)
As you can see, as of 1066, Harold has 5 sons and 2 daughters, 1 nephew in England, 2 in exile abroad, as well as 3 living brothers and 3 living sisters. That's one gigantic clan. When you count that the two other major English earls are now Harold's brothers-in-law, the Godwine dynasty looks to be firmly entrenched in England.
Of course in CK2, the major hurdle standing in the way of this Saxon powerhouse is actually winning against your Viking and Norman enemies. It'll be a challenge, but it's certainly not impossible. There's no reason why a skilled England player can't win a "Hastings" scenario-- IRL it was a hard-fought, very close struggle over the course of 9 hours. All you need is to take advantage of the moment if the battle happens to swing in your favor, and voila! Anglo-Saxon England instead of Norman England.
Last edited by AlexanderPrimus; 14-07-2011 at 09:38.
You really should try one of my CK1 mods, it has al those characters in and playable already.
Well the way I see it is that if, ur a pretender with a claim to the throne and you invade, kill the King in battle, and defeat the enemy army in a large battle, then yea you probably have great chances of winning a Kingdom for yourself.
"One man or a thousand foot, makes not difference to a knight"-French before Courtrai
After having a read, and thinking about it more so I can see how I could keep England Anglo-Saxon.
I'm pretty damn excited about this game.
His jest will savour but of shallow wit, When thousands weep more than did laugh at it.
Henry V - Shakespeare
Since in RL it was a very close fought affair, it should be a piece of cake for a player to keep England Saxon. It may very well turn out that the only way to get a Norman conquest is to play as William.
It also depends on your starting date. Since the devs are including the "play any date" feature, all you would have to do is start the game on 25 December 1066 (William's coronation) or later. Not sure what the game will do between 14 October (Hastings) and 25 December though... that's the brief reign of Edgar Aetheling, elected by the English in defiance of their Norman invaders.
I do hope that rulers will die in battle more often, it would not do to have Harold Hardrada and William the Bastard to scurry back to their kingdoms after I've trashed them.
That's what I had in mind.
Well he does have the advantage of arriving right after a disastrous battle between the English-Scandinavians, so for historicity they'd probably end up weakened for him if left to their own devices. But of course it shouldn't be set in stone that he should win, since any number of things he could've easily done could have defeated William (like orderly attacks at Hastings and not shambling over in groups to be butchered, stripping of supplies and gathering men and so forth).
Or and this also applies to the high nobility they end up as prisoners of their victors, so that the victors can ask for a nice high ransom...
Depends on how Anglo-Saxon England is set up, and the AI's set up. If it's full of Earls and Barons who have to pledge allegiance to a new King, and they're smart enough to know a teen can't protect them, most will choose William if the adult alternatives die in battle.
Then there's the Knight question. Conventional wisdom is that Norman Knights were virtually unbeatable on the field, and historically only William would have had access to them. If the devs agree with the CW, and restrict knights to feudal societies, Anglo-Saxon England doesn't really have much of a chance.
Then there's the unity factor. In 1066 much of the country refused to acknowledge Harold as King.
In other words I think it's way too early to assume the any side has a real advantage in the English succession struggle of 1066. There're too many factors to consider, and the data we have is sparse.
It's entirely possible that the design decisions made by the devs actually favor the frequently-forgotten Norwegian claimant who was killed at Stamford bridge. Harald Hardrada clearly had more resources then William, Harold Godwineson's resources were greater on paper because England is bigger then Norway but Anglo-Saxon England was badly divided. If battle is a CK1-style popularity contest, and the devs choose to err on the everyone hates King Harold Godwineson side of history it's likely Harald Hardrada of Norway will win the war more often then not.
Nick
With respect, that's not actually true. Harold had the support of essentially the entire country, and his succession ran much more smoothly than most English kings' had been in the previous century. When King Edward died, Harold was elected and crowned the following day. He was already the Earl of the largest chunk of the kingdom (an enlarged Wessex), and all the rest of the Earls were either his brothers or his brothers-in-law, with the exception of the weakest Earl, Waltheof, who was a mere teenager at the time. Harold had the full support of both of England's Archbishops, and his two wives were some of the wealthiest women in the kingdom as well. With Harold's own substantial land holdings coupled with his father Godwine's that he had inherited, plus those of his wives, brothers and inlaws, plus King Edward's land holdings from the succession, Harold was uncannily strong in his position.
The only one who didn't support Harold was his next-eldest brother Tostig, but he'd already been exiled the previous year by his own people for being a terrible, oppressive lord. Harold didn't even oust him himself, he just refused to foist him back onto Northumbria. So Tostig threw a termper tantrum and joined up with Hardrada to try to teach his brother a lesson. Thus Harold's major rivals came from outside of England, and not within.
Last edited by AlexanderPrimus; 15-07-2011 at 06:29.
You seem to be right that all of England at least acknowledged Harold as King. I'd assumed the Leofricksens in the north gave Harold trouble because William let them keep their jobs, but apparently this was not the case.
That said, I think it's pretty clear Harold Godwineson's support may have been a mile wide, but it was about an inch deep. The truly fascinating thing about the Conquest isn't that William won, it's that after William killed Harold nobody tried to make Harold's sons King. He had several adult (or at least late teen) sons from his first wife, and while that marriage wasn't accepted by the Church it was accepted by everyone else. His second wife was pregnant when he died. He had brothers and brothers-in-law a plenty. If the Godwineson faction had substantial support one would expect them to make one of those brothers, semi-legitimate sons, or unborn child rightful King; and proceed to raise an army to drive William out.
But they didn't do that. They went with a 15-year-old from the dynasty that preceded Harold, and they didn't defend him very enthusiastically.
Nick
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
