So, leaving aside the matter that there's no scholarly agreement on the existance of Ragnar Lodbrok, nevermind the snakepit incident, I've got a bone to pick with the Great Heathen Army.
I understand it's necessary for game balance to make them more powerful than any individual Anglo-Saxon kingdom, but for Christ's sake, a starting strength of 17,000 men? When Northumbria, East Anglia, and Wessex can only muster a third that many? When William the Conqueror only brought 8,000 men in 1066? High Medieval armies rarely reached that strength, and that with a much more developed state to support them, and, you know, a massively expanded population. This is the 9th century, when Europe's population was at its nadir. There's no way several loosely affiliated Norse chieftains could muster a force that size, and even if they could, they'd be hardpressed to keep a third of them provisioned. A quarter of that figure seems far more historically reasonable.
I understand it's necessary for game balance to make them more powerful than any individual Anglo-Saxon kingdom, but for Christ's sake, a starting strength of 17,000 men? When Northumbria, East Anglia, and Wessex can only muster a third that many? When William the Conqueror only brought 8,000 men in 1066? High Medieval armies rarely reached that strength, and that with a much more developed state to support them, and, you know, a massively expanded population. This is the 9th century, when Europe's population was at its nadir. There's no way several loosely affiliated Norse chieftains could muster a force that size, and even if they could, they'd be hardpressed to keep a third of them provisioned. A quarter of that figure seems far more historically reasonable.
