• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I am Icelandic and not without knowledge on Icelandic history. The fact is that Iceland with the peculiar system of governance it had in 1066 could never have waged war on any county in Ireland or wherever. Sure we managed a total force of 2300 combatants in the 13th century and we had a naval battle (where the side one that had the good sense to fill their boats up on rocks prior to setting sail). But these were local clashes where farmers could be coaxed into leaving their farms to avenge some slight on the ruling clans honor or for pure power grabbing. A far cry from sending levies on a crusade.

See thats where your wrong. Only takes the right person in the right place and any country has the ability to do things far beyond its current abilities whether the majority of the populace was in agreement at the time. Most great dictators started off in countires in just the right period where the circumstances are just right for a momentous occurrence whether good or bad. Who would have thought a jumped up little Austrian corporal could have led Germany into trying to take over Europe just after it had lost so many millions of its men and been defeated in WW1. Less than 20 years later and its all gearing up again. If you spoke to people in 1919 or 20 would they have thought it a possibility, probably not.

So the right (or wrong) person in Iceland in the 1000s and history could have been very different, all thats needed is the potential, and there was more potential in Iceland than is currently available. A jarl/chief etc could have united Iceland and taken some of Norways islands like the Orkneys Faroes, western isle etc. Not beyond imagination. Even northern parts of Ireland were susceptible in this period of time because of the Gaelic feudal system.

The way I see it the game should be as factually correct as close as possible to make a good game up until you get control, then its history re-written, like its meant to be.
 
See thats where your wrong. Only takes the right person in the right place and any country has the ability to do things far beyond its current abilities whether the majority of the populace was in agreement at the time. Most great dictators started off in countires in just the right period where the circumstances are just right for a momentous occurrence whether good or bad. Who would have thought a jumped up little Austrian corporal could have led Germany into trying to take over Europe just after it had lost so many millions of its men and been defeated in WW1. Less than 20 years later and its all gearing up again. If you spoke to people in 1919 or 20 would they have thought it a possibility, probably not.

So the right (or wrong) person in Iceland in the 1000s and history could have been very different, all thats needed is the potential, and there was more potential in Iceland than is currently available. A jarl/chief etc could have united Iceland and taken some of Norways islands like the Orkneys Faroes, western isle etc. Not beyond imagination. Even northern parts of Ireland were susceptible in this period of time because of the Gaelic feudal system.

The way I see it the game should be as factually correct as close as possible to make a good game up until you get control, then its history re-written, like its meant to be.


No but isn't the issue here logistics?


Like Iceland is all the way up top. Sailing boats and stuff would be pretty hard, Trying to get enough for a few thousand levies would have surely been near impossible.



There is nothing to say Iceland didn't have good rulers. If what history says is true , they had a very decent standard of living compared to the rest of Europe at the time. But there are still limits. And militarily , Iceland appears to have had little to no real ability to invade or carry out offensive wars.


I think defensively it may be under-represented. But having said that , in the scope of CK II , who really presses claims on Iceland. I think Norway is probably the only ruler ive ever seen potentially (but Iceland under AI control usually swears fealty instantly anways). It may not be practical to boost Icelands defensive capability within that scope (nor physically possible due to the lack of differation in ck's mechanics with regards to defensive and raisable levies). However perhaps the 1 empty holding space Autisland has could be filled with a city or something when the game begins. Though Vetisland next door to it starts off slightly above average for a North holding to the point that the count of it is stronger than the duke (who holds Autisland) hehe.
 
We seem to be getting into the weeds, so I shall simplify my argument.

1) A Holding represents the ability to attack people. It has troops you can invade England, or Syria, or whomever with.

2) Iceland never attacked anybody during CK2's era. This is probably because they were extremely anti-authoritarian. The entire point of Iceland was that they were Norwegians who didn't want to fight for their King, so they moved.

Why would those guy's show up for his Jarl's call to arms? The entire point of being an Icelander was you didn't have to put up with that shit.

3) The Orkneys did attack people. So did Anjou. Which means their Lords not only had a bunch of troops willing to follow them, they also possessed the infrastructure required for an army to go on campaign. They had guys who could maintain armor on the road. Their armies either had sufficient clerks and transport to feed themselves, or knew how to live off the country.

Yes Iceland had the potential to be militarily more significant then those Duchies. But it never actually achieved this potential, or even tried, presumably because actual Icelanders would have refused to go on campaign. Which means you can't claim I should be able to load up as Iceland and have more offensive troops then Orkney, or even be in Anjou's league.

--------------------------

As for the OP, re-read his post. He starts by saying Iceland had 1/4 of Norway's population, then he makes the not-terribly-unreasonable statement Nuril quoted "And again, Iceland could be done by adding another province, maybe Suðurland or Norðurland, or by giving Iceland more holdings;" but read it carefully.

Holdings plural. Another province. He could mean two more holdings, but this is his next sentence "Btw, if Iceland is given more provinces..." Provinces plural. There aren't many one-holding provinces.

Which means he's really talking about at least 4 holdings, which brings Iceland to 7, which is almost exactly 1/4 of Norway proper (29 holdings). More then a quarter if you don't count holdings from provinces that are in modern Sweden.

Frankly, I get the impression that if anybody who sounded somewhat authoritative said "Iceland is so kick-ass it deserves 15 holdings," he'd immediately respond with names for them all, and an offer to help with the history files.

------------------------
Except there not really any mercs up there, and it WAS a republic - why should it be treated any differently than other republics? And why should he be weaker than a Earl of Orkney? Any sensible reasoning for that? The fact Iceland had the potential in real life but did not use it does not exclude them from the chance of doing so in this game.

If I was arguing against it's potential I'd be arguing it should not have more slots for Holdings.

I'm arguing against giving a player ahistoric levels of troops for free the second he loads as Iceland. Three holdings is fine. Up the buildable slots to two in each province to represent it's potential.

It'll take years, but do you seriously think Icelanders'd have gone from "Nobody even tries to take his troops off the island," to "Let's invade England just like the men who obey that Norwegian King we despise so much." in six months just because a Jarl frowned at them?

It is all about historic plausibility. Surely Icelanders were isolationists, but surely that could be subject to change in a game that spans about 400 years. That is a choice that should be taken in game, not forced on the player or the AI by ahistorical means.

The problem is the game engine forces us to be somewhat ahistoric in Iceland.

Iceland was a rural republic. It was probably more rural then any other European state, which is saying something. So cities make no sense. OTOH to be a Republic you can't be rural, you have to be a City.

So you're either screwing up the government type or you're screwing up the holding type.

Nick
 
If I was arguing against it's potential I'd be arguing it should not have more slots for Holdings.

I'm arguing against giving a player ahistoric levels of troops for free the second he loads as Iceland. Three holdings is fine. Up the buildable slots to two in each province to represent it's potential.

It'll take years, but do you seriously think Icelanders'd have gone from "Nobody even tries to take his troops off the island," to "Let's invade England just like the men who obey that Norwegian King we despise so much." in six months just because a Jarl frowned at them?
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 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.

The problem is the game engine forces us to be somewhat ahistoric in Iceland.

Iceland was a rural republic. It was probably more rural then any other European state, which is saying something. So cities make no sense. OTOH to be a Republic you can't be rural, you have to be a City.

So you're either screwing up the government type or you're screwing up the holding type.

Nick
No you're not. Making it so that it is ruled from castles is just screwing it up completely.
 
Last edited:
I think I have two registered as well :unsure:

Anyway, I'm not icelandic (or however you call people from up there) but I'm 100% pro increasing icelands potential.

The game is about changing history. For that reason the starting conditions have to be pretty close to reality. If Iceland was wealthy (cities) and had a large population, then it deserves a representation of that. Sure logistics for warfare are difficult, but they have to pay upkeep for boats if they want to wage war so it is represented as well.
I think uniting Iceland and going out to take the throne of norway is as unrealistic as the count of Ulster founding a dynasty that unites the british empire. As the later is easily possible the former should be as well.
 
See thats where your wrong. Only takes the right person in the right place and any country has the ability to do things far beyond its current abilities whether the majority of the populace was in agreement at the time. Most great dictators started off in countires in just the right period where the circumstances are just right for a momentous occurrence whether good or bad. Who would have thought a jumped up little Austrian corporal could have led Germany into trying to take over Europe just after it had lost so many millions of its men and been defeated in WW1. Less than 20 years later and its all gearing up again. If you spoke to people in 1919 or 20 would they have thought it a possibility, probably not.

So the right (or wrong) person in Iceland in the 1000s and history could have been very different, all thats needed is the potential, and there was more potential in Iceland than is currently available. A jarl/chief etc could have united Iceland and taken some of Norways islands like the Orkneys Faroes, western isle etc. Not beyond imagination. Even northern parts of Ireland were susceptible in this period of time because of the Gaelic feudal system.

The way I see it the game should be as factually correct as close as possible to make a good game up until you get control, then its history re-written, like its meant to be.

Well I am not saying that history could not have been different. I totally agree that individual acts can shift the course of history (or maybe tweak is a better word, I think the broad lines are more or less economic/social/enviromental factors but lets not get into that).

Hell if Eyjólfur ofsi had succeeded in the burning of Flugumýri and killed jarl Gissur it could be argued that the civil war that had been ravaging Iceland on and off for two generation would have settled down and the commonwealth would have continued for longer. Even drifting into the orbit of the Hansetic league or England instead of Norwegian -> Danish orbit.

But the reality was that Iceland had no inclination to ever wage foreign wars, they did not even want to pay the extra taxes to the Norwegian crown in the 14th century for his wars. And the Norwegian king never even tried to raise a levy in Iceland. At least a few tax collectors were killed (some were put in a bag and drowned in a river) when they came for more taxes. The Althing usually reject every single extra tax en massé.

So in their very mindset these peoples were anti establishment to the point of which some economic historians call the governing structure anarcho capitalistic. Even though they might not be the descendants of Norwegian 'freedom fighters' who did not like the idea of subjecting to the will of Harald Fairhair they surely saw themselves in that light. As much is evident from the literature penned by these peoples in the 12-14th centuries.

There is the chance that towards the end of the commonwealth period, in the middle of the 13th century you could start to recognize a very underdeveloped feudal system where you had about 5 major clans that owned a lot of the land but there were no castles, no towns to speak of and no centralized authority. I am sure Iceland could have defended itself from invasion had any be attempted. It had a martial culture and a fierce dislike of authority in the commonwealth era and the distances were such that any would be invader would have a tough time controlling the island, especially with the lack of any sort of castles to base themselves in.

The fact is that the otherwise brilliant Crusader Kings 2 system does not really work that well for the Icelandic situation and therefore I think that Iceland should be kept 'underpowered' so it does not expand (which would happen if we give it a titular kingdom title (which someone mentioned) and a few more holdings. It would be silly to see Iceland invading Ireland or taking part in the crusades. That is simply so ahistoric.
 
Iceland has such an awesome, rich history (particularly in this time period), and it's represented as a virtual joke. Two counties with jack all for holdings in em'. It'd be a fun place to play if you could actually do something there... but you can't. I vote break the bloody thing into five counties and actual give some of its counties a respectable 3ish possible holdings.
 
agreed. Iceland should be relatively more important given the time span of the game. Even Greenland went through its golden age during the era (higher global temperatures in the 13th-14th century).
 
I just have to post to say that I think this is my favorite thread on this forum. Philosophical discussion of peaceful pastoral republics vs. warlike feudal systems. The logistics of rowing a boat from Iceland to any other rock at all. The comparative power between Iceland and the friggin Orkney Islands. Talmudic interpretations of what the OP did or did not mean when he used the plural of a noun. Whether registering your game is a moral imperative or not.

And all this started with Iceland, for gods sake. Why are we even talking about Iceland?
 
And all this started with Iceland, for gods sake. Why are we even talking about Iceland?

Because what area of the game you personally think is more "relevant" is.. irrelevant. I'd be fine with detailed discussions on the front page going into intricate detail about regional politics in Merv, because it's part of the game and me not being informed on the region doesn't mean the discussion is unneeded, even if I don't know what the people in the thread are going on about.
 
I love a place where the power of Iceland 1066-1453 gets a serious discussion :D

agreed. Iceland should be relatively more important given the time span of the game. Even Greenland went through its golden age during the era (higher global temperatures in the 13th-14th century).

You're a denier! Shun the heretic <shun> <shun>
 
As an Icelander I do not care, no one cares, Iceland was a very peaceful country with a insignificant levy, Icelander may be good warriors but we make absolutely shit soldiers.

I'm afraid your very misinformed. Even trying to tie it into todays military is not relevant. Iceland was trading with Ireland, Orkney's, Scotland and its Isles, Isle of Man, Norway and Denmark during the games time period. Not really isolated at all. It was only 5 or 6 days travel by boat in fair weather from northern coast of Ireland in the 900s and less from west coast of Scotland, nothing for Viking traders. Its population mainly came from Norwegian Vikings and celts with a few gaels/slaves. It had the capability to raise a large army for the period, the fact that it didn't probably more to do with the fact that many of the inhabitants went from Norway to escape from Harald the Fair-haired and to have free land without having to fight for it. Arable land was probably the primary reason for most.

Should be 4 county republic in my opinion, with 2,2,2,3 holdings probably with only 3x1,1x2 developed at 1066.

This is utter shit, Iceland's largely free farmers were not exactly soldiers and there were absolutely 0 castles in Iceland the levy if anything give Iceland too much

I do not understand this discussion Iceland is represented fine in CK2 it's version of Landed Democracy is impossible to do in CK2 engine and is also irrelevant since Iceland has no business in europe in this time period and vice versa, Iceland is small and insignificant, deal with it.

To non-Icelandic people I'd like to apologize on behalf of my countrymen for this retarded debate.
 
Last edited:
You're a denier! Shun the heretic <shun> <shun>

Uh.. what? That's just plainly true. Obviously any scientifically sensible person knows climate change is real, but there was a clear medieval warm period in which Norsemen significantly colonized Greenland and, for a decade, Vinland before going back to the Greenland-settlements. It was following the start of the Little Ice Age that Greenland was substantially depopulated and eventually made way for Inuit colonization from the extreme northern coastline. Ice ages aren't a walk in the park when you're a neighbour of the arctic circle.

Nobody I saw was saying that they weren't independent...

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"

However I would generally agree that they ought to have a low opinion of the Norwegian King and thus supply him with rather few troops if ahistorically vassalized. Presumably they can get turned into a Republic with the Republic-DLC so they'd also get the opinion modifier for their liege, since they certainly didn't want royal authority cramming their style. Whilst independent they ought to have good potential for troops if it's all controlled by one chieftain, though. Hopefully some sort of representative-system for Republics could be of use to help scale this appropriately:

How seriously his faction dominates as a voice in the Althing, etc. The higher his percentage of support, EU:Rome-style but for the character himself, the less his provinces have their levies penalized due to not rallying the other chieftains, so in like the Sturlung era that rather sizable battle could be a civil war breaking out whilst the opposition and government are at a 40%-ish high each, with the rest being the uninvolved chieftains in the third province.

Just thinking out loud since my mind went to the factions in EU:Rome. Hopefully they'd reintroduce triggered modifiers to let that not require any unseemly hassle, since it obviously is more of a tribal side-effect than part of actual Republican proceedings, regardless of how oligarchical.


and there were absolutely 0 castles in Iceland

Many of the "Castles" of Scandinavia are either from the 1200s or are merely called that because they were settlements of the local Lord and therefore had his armed men there. The lack of big defense-oriented piles of rocks doesn't mean Scandinavia didn't have soldiers. We had a lot of them. Castles just weren't all that applicable to our military traditions at that time in most cases. It's just a matter of game-mechanics trying to get a similar result. :)
 
Last edited:
2) Iceland never attacked anybody during CK2's era. This is probably because they were extremely anti-authoritarian. The entire point of Iceland was that they were Norwegians who didn't want to fight for their King, so they moved.

Why would those guy's show up for his Jarl's call to arms? The entire point of being an Icelander was you didn't have to put up with that shit.

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. Many of them fought in other countries after they left Norway and then went to Iceland so I don't think Icelanders had a natural tendency to be peaceful. Other reasons, maybe more common, that drove people to settle in Iceland may have been a shortage of land in their homes, in f.e. south western Norway.

I have read about one possible reason for why there was a democracy here in Iceland but not in f.e. Orkney and I think the democracy and decentralization was the cause for Iceland's lack of wars. Unlike Iceland Orkney was close to powerful kingdoms, such as Scotland, and therefor they had to be centralized to keep their independence. A jarl gathered heavy taxes from his subjects and had great control over them. Iceland was however far from other countries and that allowed Iceland to be so decentralized. The farmers had great power and, probably like the the people of Orkney, were reluctant to go to war, or at least an offensive war. But things chanced and Iceland became centralized just as Orkney was and the farmers no longer had a choice, they had to go to war if their lord ordered them to go. And if Iceland had been ruled by one ruler for a long time I think they would have went to war with some other nation. And then it is unfair that that ruler can't muster as many troops than he could have mustered in real life.

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.

Yes Iceland had the potential to be militarily more significant then those Duchies. But it never actually achieved this potential, or even tried, presumably because actual Icelanders would have refused to go on campaign. Which means you can't claim I should be able to load up as Iceland and have more offensive troops then Orkney, or even be in Anjou's league.

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.

As for the OP, re-read his post. He starts by saying Iceland had 1/4 of Norway's population, then he makes the not-terribly-unreasonable statement Nuril quoted "And again, Iceland could be done by adding another province, maybe Suðurland or Norðurland, or by giving Iceland more holdings;" but read it carefully.

Holdings plural. Another province. He could mean two more holdings, but this is his next sentence "Btw, if Iceland is given more provinces..." Provinces plural. There aren't many one-holding provinces.

Which means he's really talking about at least 4 holdings, which brings Iceland to 7, which is almost exactly 1/4 of Norway proper (29 holdings). More then a quarter if you don't count holdings from provinces that are in modern Sweden.

Frankly, I get the impression that if anybody who sounded somewhat authoritative said "Iceland is so kick-ass it deserves 15 holdings," he'd immediately respond with names for them all, and an offer to help with the history files.

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. So that would be the three holding that are in Iceland today and two extra. These two extra would either be one in Vestisland and one in Austisland, or a province with a holding, that is a province with a county capital and another holding.

The reason for why I said "provinces" in that one place was that historically Iceland was divided into 4 quarters but I did not think much about that, but I should have explained that better. I don't remember exactly what I was thinking when I wrote provinces, but since Austisland is a one holding province I could have meant two new provinces with only one holding, the capital holding. I would not want a 4 province Iceland if that would make Iceland more stronger than it was historically.

And I would certainly not want a 15 holding Iceland !

The problem is the game engine forces us to be somewhat ahistoric in Iceland.

Iceland was a rural republic. It was probably more rural then any other European state, which is saying something. So cities make no sense. OTOH to be a Republic you can't be rural, you have to be a City.

So you're either screwing up the government type or you're screwing up the holding type.

Nick

I agree with that, it is very hard to represent Iceland completelly.

As an Icelander I do not care, no one cares, Iceland was a very peaceful country with a insignificant levy, Icelander may be good warriors but we make absolutely shit soldiers.

Originally Posted by Kins
I'm afraid your very misinformed. Even trying to tie it into todays military is not relevant. Iceland was trading with Ireland, Orkney's, Scotland and its Isles, Isle of Man, Norway and Denmark during the games time period. Not really isolated at all. It was only 5 or 6 days travel by boat in fair weather from northern coast of Ireland in the 900s and less from west coast of Scotland, nothing for Viking traders. Its population mainly came from Norwegian Vikings and celts with a few gaels/slaves. It had the capability to raise a large army for the period, the fact that it didn't probably more to do with the fact that many of the inhabitants went from Norway to escape from Harald the Fair-haired and to have free land without having to fight for it. Arable land was probably the primary reason for most.

Should be 4 county republic in my opinion, with 2,2,2,3 holdings probably with only 3x1,1x2 developed at 1066.
This is utter shit, Iceland's largely free farmers were not exactly soldiers and there were absolutely 0 castles in Iceland the levy if anything give Iceland too much

I do not understand this discussion Iceland is represented fine in CK2 it's version of Landed Democracy is impossible to do in CK2 engine and is also irrelevant since Iceland has no business in europe in this time period and vice versa, Iceland is small and insignificant, deal with it.

To non-Icelandic people I'd like to apologize on behalf of my countrymen for this retarded debate.

True, Iceland did not have any castles, but I I think it was not as small and unimportant as you think. Norway f.e. only had maybe around 4 times Iceland's population and Scotland had around 1100 a little over 4 times Iceland's population, even though it had around 6,6 times Iceland's population when CK2 ends. And for a time these farmers were ruled by powerful families that acted like nobles and the farmers were rather unfree for a time. And Iceland had relatively many soldiers, in the 12th century 2300 men almost fought and they followed goðar that came from parts of Vesturland along with parts of Norðurland and Suðurland, an area that had only had about 55 % of the population. I don't see why an Iceland united behind one man could not have gone to war with another country.

But Iceland's levy may have been of poor quality.

But I don't think this debate is "retarded".
 
Iceland has such an awesome, rich history (particularly in this time period), and it's represented as a virtual joke. Two counties with jack all for holdings in em'. It'd be a fun place to play if you could actually do something there... but you can't. I vote break the bloody thing into five counties and actual give some of its counties a respectable 3ish possible holdings.

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

f3xqav.jpg
 
Last edited: