Is Iceland underpowered ?

[Nick B II]

Then you haven't been reading Nick's posts. He's still claiming that the Icelanders weren't "following their King" despite the fact that they've had absolutely nothing to do with him for hundreds of years. He's continuously made claims as to their 'nature' to the point where it's just offensive. Like I previously stated, it's akin to calling all Australians thieves because they were originally a prison-colony.

"In 1066 Iceland was made of people who chose to be far away from their King largely because they didn't want to be bothered fighting for him in England or Denmark."

"Iceland was founded by people who refused to invade England on their King's behalf"

Re-read those posts carefully.

In 930 a bunch of Norwegians, who clearly had a King at that time, moved to Iceland. They stopped having a King.

But that doesn't mean they never had one, any more then the US's 236 years of King-free status means that the statement "America was founded by people who refused to pay taxes to their King" is untrue.

Nick
EDIT: Just notices you emphasized the years. Americans might not like the statement "The Tea Parties are proof that in 2012 America is still made up of people who refused to pay taxes to their King." but that doesn't make it a claim that Elizabeth II has the right to order us around.

[Nick B II]

Did you miss the part where they were independent until 1262? They are exactly what is called 'autonomous vassals' in the game - that means they are de facto not vassals of the Norwegian king.

And where have I ever implied they were not independent before 1262?

Reread my post. I said that Icelanders were Norwegians once, but they got pissed at obeying the King and moved. This actually happened in 930, and is generally known as the founding of Iceland.

I went on to say that if you'd fled Norway because you hated the very idea of obeying a King, it's not very likely your kids would show up for to invade England on behalf of a Jarl or a Lawspeaker.

And four holdings is not nearly enough to represent Iceland. That's a bit like splitting England into twenty. Oh and the number of troops are clearly not ahistorical unless you have missed the last 3 pages of discussion.

If four holdings is too few how many do you want?

As for troop levels, if the only historical example is of 2,000 troops; why are 3,500 troops too few?

No you're not. Making it so that it is ruled from castles is just screwing it up completely.

And cities are worse. Iceland did not even have villages.

It was a land of fortified farmhouses. And "fortified farmhouse" is a lot closer to castle then anything else the CK2 engine provides.

Nick

[Nick B II]

Many people settled in Iceland from 874-930. According to the sagas many of them were powerful men that moved to Iceland were enemies to Harald hairfair and therefor they moved away, but that does not mean they were any more peaceful than others.

A truly peaceful Iceland probably would have invaded somebody in CK2's timeframe. It probably would have fought the Norwegian King when he showed up and declared himself their liege-lord and Christianizer in 1262.

The problem with Iceland was they were all convinced they were warlords. In France a Private War was a conflict between two great Nobleman, with hundreds or thousands of troops on a side. In Iceland Private Wars were just what happened when Johan "borrowed" Sven's goat and refused to give it back even after the lawgiver declared him an Outlaw.

I've never had a problem with Iceland's provinces having the ability to spew out lots of fighters. My problem is that that in CK2 every fighter a province spews out is a soldier in the Jarl/Doge/etc.'s army.

And in the highly decentralized state I just described there'll be plenty of fighters, but they'll all have better things to do (ie: take sides on the issue of Johan's goat, steal some fourth guy's goat, etc.) then spend six months in England.

But I may have a solution, what if Iceland has more holdings at later dates ? If you start early building holdings can represent centralizing the nation and if you start later, f.e. in 1264, Iceland could have maybe 5 holdings (that includes county capitals, so maybe two county capitals, the city Iceland already has and f.e. two bishoprics )?

The problem with that may be that it is harder for you to build expensive holdings than to centralize.

Holdings start at 700 gold each. At one gold a month that's a build-rate of one every 58 years 4 months, but as Iceland you should be getting more like two a month. You should have two castles, not one, so it should be more like one holding every 30 years.

They tried and did centrialised. And what do you mean "actual Icelanders would have refused to go on campaign", during Sturlungaöld a few thousand of Icelanders went on campaigns and fought for the ruling clans in big battles around Iceland.

They didn't centralize much.

From what I've read the difference between independent Iceland and Norwegian Iceland was that Norwegian Iceland said it was Christian and frequently told the Norwegian King he couldn't do stuff.

As for Sturlungaöld, that's not really comparable to leaving the island. The English Kings had a much more centralized state then any Icelandic ruler of this period, frequent wars that the English fought France, and strong feudal oaths guaranteeing them troops.

Yet the English nobility made a point of dragging it's heels on French campaigns, creatively re-interpreting it's rights so it could stay away. Going on campaign in a foreign country is a big deal.

In Iceland, where the typical response to somebody complaining about rape or murder was "you should kill that guy, the Althing will declare him an outlaw so he won't be able to legally kill you back" actually leaving the island meant leaving your entire family open to rape/murder.

OTOH staying on the island to fight the very people most likely to rape/murder your family because you're allied to the other clan...

Ok, first, by holding you mean a county capital, a barony, a bishoric or a city, right ?

Now, sorry but you misunderstood me. I was mainly thinking about maybe two extra holdings OR an province, maybe with a holding...

That's exaclty what I mean by holding.

Even two more is a lot more then Iceland deserves. For the greatest war in Icelandic history a couple thousand men fought. As Jarl you can raise 3,500 with the click of a mouse.

Nick

[Wallain]

And where have I ever implied they were not independent before 1262?

Reread my post. I said that Icelanders were Norwegians once, but they got pissed at obeying the King and moved. This actually happened in 930, and is generally known as the founding of Iceland.

I went on to say that if you'd fled Norway because you hated the very idea of obeying a King, it's not very likely your kids would show up for to invade England on behalf of a Jarl or a Lawspeaker.

And why not? Just because my grandfather does not like Germans does not make me incapable of liking them. His problems are not mine. Fact of the matter is that Iceland needs to represent what they were at the time regardless of their policy towards invasions. A sufficiently charismatic man can turn sentiments around anyway. It's not a valid argument at all.

If four holdings is too few how many do you want?

As for troop levels, if the only historical example is of 2,000 troops; why are 3,500 troops too few?

And cities are worse. Iceland did not even have villages.

It was a land of fortified farmhouses. And "fortified farmhouse" is a lot closer to castle then anything else the CK2 engine provides.

I am going to tie these two together. They have these numbers if you are having well-developed castles (no such thing at the time on Iceland). Cities generally have fewer and weaker levies. I want to change it to a bishopric/city set-up spread over at lest two more counties than we have now (so we have the proper representation of the four regions in Iceland, and the proper form of government). And a fortified farmhouse is by no means equivalent to a castle. You also might want to consider that these holdings should not be expanded, but rather stay fairly poor to represent it (likewise, with a castle, a city just gives a better representation of what it was really like - it was farmers who decided, not some feudal lord). You are somehow trying to justify that Iceland should not be a republic because castles gives a better representation of the area - well it does not. There was no real castles (a fortified farmhouse is not a castle in the sense of a castle in CK2, which includes cities, barracks and whatnot) there at the time, but there were people (and surely also minor villages with people of a basic professions for an agricultural society such as blacksmithing) and there were with certainty small docks. There were a bishopric. Now I would not go out of my way to give Iceland extremely many holdings but I do think it should be split at 2/1/1/1. All of them cities, except for one bishopric (to represent the cloister that was founded) and one castle (to represent the jarl at later dates) - with no improvements whatsoever, except maybe for a dock at some places. That way you can properly represent Iceland with the mechanics we now have available without making it as completely ahistorical as it is now.

[Hyzhenhok]

If you turn early Iceland into a Republic, the whole discussion becomes pretty moot Under current CK2 mechanics, Icelandic holdings need to be castles if you want Iceland to be playable. Yes, you can technically give a Feudal lord no holdings but cities and bishoprics, but he'll be crippled and so that's not a good plan if your goal is strengthening Iceland. Besides, as Nick B has said, there is no real reason to give Iceland cities over castles when historically it had neither.

Better just to accept that this game uses a large amount of abstraction and it's not reasonable to obsess over how the mechanics don't fit this or that niche area.

[Tuplis]

I briefly read through the wikipedia entry concerning the military history of iceland. During the timeframe of this game, there's little in the way of military action mentioned there. From that I can conclude that Iceland never really was in a position to conquer and hold anything. Therefore I believe that while not impossible, it should be very difficult for iceland to expand.

[Revshawn]

It would be interesting to see a situation similar to Ireland in a lot of ways. One of the reasons Iceland was never truly involved in foreign politics is because the nobles ((Or what could be construed as close to nobles)) in Iceland at the time were too busy fighting amongst themselves in their own realm. Why fight with other countries when you have enemies at home to destroy? In history none of the war chieftans were able to take out the rest of the factions and secure peace within Iceland, so the Iceland lower classes submitted to the Nords in the 1200's. But if history is changed a little bit and one of the chieftans gains a leader along the lines of a Khan who decides to not give a crap about traditions and destroys his enemies rather than let them live out of honor and Christianity...maybe he successfully unites Iceland and creates his own state?

Needless to say, there is room for expansion here. You can't add too many provinces to Iceland at the risk of buffing them too much, but Iceland could be doing a lot better then they are right now! They had a lot more potential for power and military might in CK2, it's just that it wasn't exercised historically!

Good reading can be done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...ory_of_Iceland

Read kids. It's good for you.

[olvirki]

A truly peaceful Iceland probably would have invaded somebody in CK2's timeframe. It probably would have fought the Norwegian King when he showed up and declared himself their liege-lord and Christianizer in 1262.

Did you forget a "not" there ? Anyway, when Sturlungaöld had began Iceland was so centrlized the farmers pretty much had to follow their nearest goði to battle, and goðar wanted to expand their power just as much as other powerful men. And Iceland became christian in 1000 AD, not in 1262.

The problem with Iceland was they were all convinced they were warlords. In France a Private War was a conflict between two great Nobleman, with hundreds or thousands of troops on a side. In Iceland Private Wars were just what happened when Johan "borrowed" Sven's goat and refused to give it back even after the lawgiver declared him an Outlaw.

Most of the battles that were fought in Sturlungaöld were actually fought for power. There were some family feuds, but many of them began with a powerstruggle. Around two thousand men did not meet in Skagafjörður and fought because Kolbeinn stole Sturla's sweater, but because Sturla had promised the Norwegian king to bring Iceland under the king, and if he had managed that he would probably be given a jarl title. Taking over Skagafjörður and a part of Húnavatnssísla was his second step towards that (that area had around 12 % of Iceland's population), and he had a good claim, his grandfather on his mothers side had ruled the area and that ruler was also grandfather to Kolbeinn ungi, that ruled the area at that time.

And these rulers I have been talking about were not little men that gathered many allies and fought battles, and again, these battles were not fought over small issues. Sighvatur Sturluson, father to the earlier meantion Sturla and brother to Snorri Sturluson, ruled about 23 % of Iceland's population just before Sturla came back from Norway. Sturla ruled about 4 % of Iceland's population, Snorri Sturluson (and his sons) ruled around 20 % of Iceland's population and Þórður Sturluson, brother to Snorri Sturluson, ruled about 6 % of Iceland's population.

Now to the other clans, the Haukdælir ruled around 13 % of Icelands population, Ásbirningar, ruled by Kolbeinn ungi, ruled about 12 % of the population, the Oddverjar ruled about 8 % of the population and the Svínfellingar ruled about 14 %.

When Sturla came back from Norway he took over the lands of his uncles (and their sons), and he did have to fight a battle with Snorri where close to 1100 men fought. Then the Haukdælir, Ásbirningar and the relunctant Oddverjar went on an campaign against him, I will talk better about that campaign later in this post, later that year came the battle between Sturla and Sighvatur on one hand against the Haukdælir and Ásbirningar. There over 2000 men fought.

So you see in Iceland there were plenty of battles, campaigns and wars, but Iceland did not see major battles until Sturlungaöld.

I've never had a problem with Iceland's provinces having the ability to spew out lots of fighters. My problem is that that in CK2 every fighter a province spews out is a soldier in the Jarl/Doge/etc.'s army.

And in the highly decentralized state I just described there'll be plenty of fighters, but they'll all have better things to do (ie: take sides on the issue of Johan's goat, steal some fourth guy's goat, etc.) then spend six months in England.

When Iceland became as centrialized as it did in the Sturlungaöld the leaders could muster great armies against one another and a leader that would rule all of Iceland, like Þórður kakali, son of Sighvatur, did, that leader could have gathered men and transported at least 650 men accross sea (there was a naval battle between 450 men and 200 men, and I higly doubt that was all of Iceland's ships).

Holdings start at 700 gold each. At one gold a month that's a build-rate of one every 58 years 4 months, but as Iceland you should be getting more like two a month. You should have two castles, not one, so it should be more like one holding every 30 years.

Oh, so that is not a good solution. It is probably better to have Iceland stronger but as a democracy until Sturlungaöld.

They didn't centralize much.

I disagree, centralization allowed these big battle I have been talking about to happen. Iceland was maybe not as centrialized in Sturlungaöld as some other countries, but much more centrialized then it was before Sturlungaöld.

From what I've read the difference between independent Iceland and Norwegian Iceland was that Norwegian Iceland said it was Christian and frequently told the Norwegian King he couldn't do stuff.

As for Sturlungaöld, that's not really comparable to leaving the island. The English Kings had a much more centralized state then any Icelandic ruler of this period, frequent wars that the English fought France, and strong feudal oaths guaranteeing them troops.

Yet the English nobility made a point of dragging it's heels on French campaigns, creatively re-interpreting it's rights so it could stay away. Going on campaign in a foreign country is a big deal.

In Iceland, where the typical response to somebody complaining about rape or murder was "you should kill that guy, the Althing will declare him an outlaw so he won't be able to legally kill you back" actually leaving the island meant leaving your entire family open to rape/murder.

OTOH staying on the island to fight the very people most likely to rape/murder your family because you're allied to the other clan...

There is a difference between a nobleman powerful refusing to send troops accross, and a farmer refusing a goði or a jarl because he risks making an enemy with a man that can drive him and his family off his land or do him harm in other ways. There are examples of goðar driving farmers off their lands because he did not trust the farmers.

And again, Iceland became officially christian in 1000 AD, and a few decades most probably had converted. Certainly when Sturlungaöld began everyone was christian, I even doubt there were any pagans left in 1066.

The Norwegian kings most likely tried to take over Iceland for decades because Iceland was inhabidet by people of Norwegian decent and they were quiete many.

And one could be made an outlaw for killing only one man or raping a women if you were rather poor and powerless and broke against a rich and powerful man (or with rich and powerful friends), but normally you would pay a fine for that. And if you killed a man you maybe payed a "manngjöld", a normal fine for killing a man, or a little less or more depending on how the case went. You would normally have to do more than killing man or raping a women to be made an outlaw.

Goðar very rarely were outlawed by alþingi, I at least can't name a single example, but according to a book about goðar it was possible. And it was very hard for a goði that had many goðorðs, like most goðar did in Sturlungaöld, to be made an outlaw by Alþingi, since goðar served in alþingi as jury and if you held many goðorðs you had more votes.

That's exaclty what I mean by holding.

Even two more is a lot more then Iceland deserves. For the greatest war in Icelandic history a couple thousand men fought. As Jarl you can raise 3,500 with the click of a mouse.

Nick

I have two reasons.

1) Iceland's full force was higher than 2000. For example, in july 1238 an 1600 men army from 3 clans (one of those clans were forced to help) followed Sturla Sighvatsson until he and his army stopped at Kleifarvirki (Kleifar fort). The allied army then backed, probably because that fort was considered untakable. Those three clans only ruled about 1/3rd of Iceland's population, which suggests Iceland could at least muster 4800 men.

Later that summer Sturla Sighvatsson and his father fought 2 of the clans that had followed Sturla and Sturla and Sighvatur fell.

So a man that ruled all of Iceland, and at least one man did, could most likely raise 4800 men.

2) I think Norway's levy's are much higher than they should be. In ck2 Norway has 35 860 men in max levy in 1200 and in 1337 the number has reached 45 840. But according to what I have read Norway's total population at that time was less than 300 000 and maybe around 250 000. Males are only half of that number and you also have to account for boys, old men and so on.

It would be interesting to see a situation similar to Ireland in a lot of ways. One of the reasons Iceland was never truly involved in foreign politics is because the nobles ((Or what could be construed as close to nobles)) in Iceland at the time were too busy fighting amongst themselves in their own realm. Why fight with other countries when you have enemies at home to destroy? In history none of the war chieftans were able to take out the rest of the factions and secure peace within Iceland, so the Iceland lower classes submitted to the Nords in the 1200's. But if history is changed a little bit and one of the chieftans gains a leader along the lines of a Khan who decides to not give a crap about traditions and destroys his enemies rather than let them live out of honor and Christianity...maybe he successfully unites Iceland and creates his own state?

Needless to say, there is room for expansion here. You can't add too many provinces to Iceland at the risk of buffing them too much, but Iceland could be doing a lot better then they are right now! They had a lot more potential for power and military might in CK2, it's just that it wasn't exercised historically!

Good reading can be done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...ory_of_Iceland

Read kids. It's good for you.

Nice article. I learned a few things from it.

I agree, Iceland is similar to Ireland in these matters. And it is strange that Iceland and Ireland have so many things in common.

[Wallain]

there is no real reason to give Iceland cities over castles when historically it had neither.

Except the government would change to a republic which is *drumroll* historically accurate.

[Nick B II]

Did you forget a "not" there ? Anyway, when Sturlungaöld had began Iceland was so centrlized the farmers pretty much had to follow their nearest goði to battle, and goðar wanted to expand their power just as much as other powerful men. And Iceland became christian in 1000 AD, not in 1262.

I did not forget a not.

If Iceland had been somewhat peaceful they probably would have stopped fighting each-other long enough to form a real government, and in roughly 400 years most real government send troops abroad to fight somebody no matter how peaceful they are. For example Iceland's latest Republic sent troops to Iraq less then 60 years after it was founded. As far as I can tell the closest thing there is to a country with a government refusing to fight abroad for 400 years is the Swiss and a) the Swiss have been active as mercenaries for pretty much their entire history (the Vatican's "Army" is still Swiss) and b) it's debatable whether they actually had a central government for much of this time.

As for the Sturlungaöld, that not's centralization. Centralization is when one guy can tell the other to go home and he does, not when two guys bring the country to Civil War.

As for the rest I have to make one point:
What's the difference between being driven of your land and being taken to England to fight the Jarl's war? Either way you're off the land.

More importantly if you manage to avoid going to England and you happen to be a passable warrior, you'll have the ability to pursue any blood feud that strikes your fancy until the Jarl comes back with his men.

After all it's not like there's a Sheriff whose job is to enforce the Law.

Nick

[Nick B II]

And why not? Just because my grandfather does not like Germans does not make me incapable of liking them. His problems are not mine. Fact of the matter is that Iceland needs to represent what they were at the time regardless of their policy towards invasions. A sufficiently charismatic man can turn sentiments around anyway. It's not a valid argument at all.

But you're not proposing that a "sufficiently charismatic" leader have the ability to send 5,000 Icelanders to their death in England, you're proposing literally any Icelandic leader have the ability to send 5,000 Icelanders to invade England.

I am going to tie these two together. They have these numbers if you are having well-developed castles (no such thing at the time on Iceland). Cities generally have fewer and weaker levies. I want to change it to a bishopric/city set-up spread over at lest two more counties than we have now (so we have the proper representation of the four regions in Iceland, and the proper form of government). And a fortified farmhouse is by no means equivalent to a castle. You also might want to consider that these holdings should not be expanded, but rather stay fairly poor to represent it (likewise, with a castle, a city just gives a better representation of what it was really like - it was farmers who decided, not some feudal lord). You are somehow trying to justify that Iceland should not be a republic because castles gives a better representation of the area - well it does not. There was no real castles (a fortified farmhouse is not a castle in the sense of a castle in CK2, which includes cities, barracks and whatnot) there at the time, but there were people (and surely also minor villages with people of a basic professions for an agricultural society such as blacksmithing) and there were with certainty small docks. There were a bishopric. Now I would not go out of my way to give Iceland extremely many holdings but I do think it should be split at 2/1/1/1. All of them cities, except for one bishopric (to represent the cloister that was founded) and one castle (to represent the jarl at later dates) - with no improvements whatsoever, except maybe for a dock at some places. That way you can properly represent Iceland with the mechanics we now have available without making it as completely ahistorical as it is now.

You're misunderstanding the term "Castle" as it's used in CK2. It does not represent an actual castle. If it nobody would have castles in 1066. Literally nobody. The elaborate fortifications we now call castles did not exist outside the Middle East/Byzantium, and their predecessors in Western Architecture (primarily the Norman Motte and Bailey) were restricted to Normandy.

OTOH there is no City-Barony in the entire game that does not represent an actual physical city.

As for your proposed design for Iceland, it's incredibly overpowered. Five holdings is too many. Four provinces is more then any Irish Duke, more then many French or German Duchies. It would give the Doge at least 5 times the troops any Icelandic general has ever commanded in the history of the universe.

I think you're just gonna have to admit this fact: CK2 sucks as an Iceland simulator. It's too unique to fit into a generic Western feudal design, and too small for a game that can't simulate the politics at the goði level at all.

Nick

[Nick B II]

Except the government would change to a republic which is *drumroll* historically accurate.

No it's not.

What would be historically accurate is not County-level or Barony-level government at all. It would all be at the goði-level, roughly the level of an English Manor or Reichsritter. No Counties or the Duchy would exist for most of the game, because during most of the game Icelanders treated their supposed superiors the same way the Irish treated their Ard Ri.

Nick

[principiis]

While I can't get involved in a sweeping debate about the topic at this exact moment in time, I'd just like to mention that I've actually made an Iceland mini-mod, fond as I am of ruling from Reykjavík in CKII. (The link's in my sig.)

Based on what Doomdark has said in the modding subforum re: mod-centric changes for 1.06/SoI, I may be able to make v0.2 even more historically plausible than the current iteration. But, as you'll note in the thread, my concern with this mod (originally for my own use only) was less about precise historical accuracy and more about expanding gameplay possibilities without unreasonably threatening suspension of disbelief. (This is my general approach to the mod projects I personally set out on, although as a history buff I naturally have a tremendous amount of respect for the folks who often go to incredible lengths to deliver painstaking accuracy. To the extent that the game mechanics and fun gameplay allow, I support maximal historicity.)

Of course, I am not from Iceland myself, so while I'd like to think my research was decent enough, I would gladly welcome feedback from the OP or anyone else who is knowledgable on the subject. (Hopefully I haven't made any glaringly offensive errors. )

I'm a bit busy with work for now (and battling a fierce EU3 addiction), but I do plan on following this discussion and posting here again. Just wanted to give my $0.02 real quick.

[Mattabesta]

Iceland is not underpowered and is definitly playable and competitive. Here is my current :

After I made my own post I played Iceland and by 1145 had all of Ireland.

[olvirki]

I did not forget a not.

Ah ok.

If Iceland had been somewhat peaceful they probably would have stopped fighting each-other long enough to form a real government, and in roughly 400 years most real government send troops abroad to fight somebody no matter how peaceful they are. For example Iceland's latest Republic sent troops to Iraq less then 60 years after it was founded. As far as I can tell the closest thing there is to a country with a government refusing to fight abroad for 400 years is the Swiss and a) the Swiss have been active as mercenaries for pretty much their entire history (the Vatican's "Army" is still Swiss) and b) it's debatable whether they actually had a central government for much of this time.

Do you mean that if Icelanders had stopped fighting each other in the 10th or the 11th century they would have formed a real government ? In that era killing were probably quite common, but no major battles were fought, not even when Iceland became christian, and I doubt these killings were the cause of Iceland's decentralization. I find it more likely that Iceland's lack of neighbors simply allowed Iceland to be decentralized. But later when the goðar became much more powerful many big battles were fought.

Or were you referring to Sturlungaöld ?

And I think Iceland only sent 2 troops to a peacekeeping force in Iraq.

As for the Sturlungaöld, that not's centralization. Centralization is when one guy can tell the other to go home and he does, not when two guys bring the country to Civil War.

You don't understand, that is literally what happened ! When the Sturlungaöld had began the goðar had become so powerful they could order the farmers around. They were able to force the farmers fight in many major battled during during the 13th century. I remember at least 6 major battles that were fought in this era. Each had in all from maybe 500 men to around 2000 men. Each army was often lead by one man, and sometimes an allience of leaders, most often two allied leaders, but once 4 leaders.

And I am not counting campaigns, minor battles, burnings and so on.

The goðar very often did not have to pay taxes from their lands and often recieved taxes from the farmers. They could steal the lands from farmers they did not like or do other and worse things. Kolbeinn ungi f.e. killed a disloyal farmer with out reprecautions.

And this civil war was not fought by 2 men, but by a number of leaders. Kolbeinn and Sturla were both dead by 1245, but the war continued for years. The last battle was fought in on the 19th of july, 1255, ten years after Kolbeinn died, and even after that offensive actions were made.

And decades before Sturla came back from Norway a ruler of a centralized province state had mustered the farmers and fought a major battle. In 1208 the forces of the ruler of the Ásbirningar at the time, uncle to both Sturla and Kolbeinn, and the bishop of Hólar fought. Their number were close to 1000 combined.

Before the 13th century there were no major battles and men were used to solve big issues, even though men were killed and minor battles were fought. But around 1100 goðar started to give their lands to the church in the name, but keep on living on them as they used to do and recieve their benafits. Since the church owned these lands in the name they did not have to pay taxes and I know that at least the Oddverjar recieved taxes from the farmers around them.

All this gave them the wealth needed to expand their power and many goðar and families gained many goðorðs and ruled whole regions, by 1230 all of Iceland was ruled by 5 families and one was divided into 3 factions. Traditionally the farmers could support anyone they wanted but it normally did little good to support a far away goði and when every goði exept one was far away you did not have much of a choice.

As the goðar gained more and more farms they made another important step they rented their lands to farmers, who in all likelyhood had to help the goði in warfare.

As goðar gained more and more farmland they made another important step, they rented their lands to farmers, who most likely had to fight for the goði that had given them the land.

So Iceland had centrialized province states, the first came into existence in the late 12th century and in 1230 all of Iceland was under 5 families, and a man that ruled all of Iceland, like Þórður kakali did, would not have to talk the farmers into going to say Ireland, he could simply order them to do it.

As for the rest I have to make one point:
What's the difference between being driven of your land and being taken to England to fight the Jarl's war? Either way you're off the land.

More importantly if you manage to avoid going to England and you happen to be a passable warrior, you'll have the ability to pursue any blood feud that strikes your fancy until the Jarl comes back with his men.

First, why do you always use England as an example ? It is not a very good move for player playing the duke of Iceland to attack England by your self, but attacking a f.e. indepentent count in Ireland is another story. Or if you have sworn fielty to the Norwegian king then you can attack a weaker vassal of the Norwegian king.

And second, the jarl of Iceland would probably leave some troops behind and if you stear up trouble against the most powerful man in Iceland they will start looking for you....

I don't know how many men he would leave behind and I don't know how many troops the three clans left in july 1238 when the went on a campaign against Sturla. I only know that the ruler of Iceland would probably be able to raise 4800 troops and have more troops to spare.

And third, if you follow the jarl you will keep your land, exept you die in the campaign, if you refuse him he may steal the land from you. But if you refuse to go with him he may steal your land, or even kill you.

After all it's not like there's a Sheriff whose job is to enforce the Law.

Nick

But the jarl's troops might..

But you're not proposing that a "sufficiently charismatic" leader have the ability to send 5,000 Icelanders to their death in England, you're proposing literally any Icelandic leader have the ability to send 5,000 Icelanders to invade England.

A ruler like Þórður kakali, that briefly ruled all of Iceland in the 13th century, would not have to be charismatic to muster 5000 troops and invade a foreign lord. Iceland had become so centrialized that the farmers had little choice.