Hakon the Good

[Harald Fairhair]

I think playing Hakon as a christian is way to easy wich should be difficult like it were historical. He was popular contrary his brother, but his christian religion was met with hostility in history despite being a good ruler. In the game its to easy converting the subjects to christianity when he has "sympathy for pagans" trait, but I think it would still be to easy since he is popular. The fact that the country is mainly pagan should be a factor when vassals consider converting or certain traits that would make more converting to a another religion more appealing to their traits.

 

[zGreen]

If you're a player it isn't that hard but for the AI it's mission impossible

Hakon was murdered by his vassals within two years of my game

 

[Rubidium]

And of course, historically he almost certainly never existed. All records of him are from much later legends, whereas contemporary records of his supposed patron, host and military supporter, Athelstan (who's reign is quite well documented) never mention him. But the same is true for pretty much all the in-game Norse rulers pre-1066 (and for Sweden, some time after that), except for Gorm the Old.

So worrying about how historically easy or difficult his reign is is somewhat besides the point.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

eh, ive found playing as him suprisingly difficult. you HAVE to go deal with your brother Erik Bloodaxe, else he assassinates you at some point. you manage that though, youre in an amazing position.

 

[Sarog]

My first run as Hakon, I ended up getting assassinated within a couple of months of game start. But the difficulty of the run isn't in converting your vassals, it's in fending off your pagan neighbours and dealing with pagan uprisings. I've needed to manage my gold carefully, since Sweden formed and keeps targeting me with prepared invasions that I can only beat back with mercs. Expansion is also tricky because the pagan attrition is really punishing. Not the hardest start in the game, certainly, but I think it's in a good place.

 

[Harald Fairhair]

And of course, historically he almost certainly never existed. All records of him are from much later legends, whereas contemporary records of his supposed patron, host and military supporter, Athelstan (who's reign is quite well documented) never mention him. But the same is true for pretty much all the in-game Norse rulers pre-1066 (and for Sweden, some time after that), except for Gorm the Old.

So worrying about how historically easy or difficult his reign is is somewhat besides the point.

Most norwegian historians would disagree and I can explain why. Two of the first saga writers Sæmund Frode and Are Frode were born in 1057 and 1067, both of them got their sources from elders born under the reign of Håkon Ladejarl (974-995). Håkon the Good was king 934-960 wich is only a few years apart from the jarl of Lade. As for English sources not mention him, they do however mention his father king Harald Fairhair in the Gesta Regum Anglorum by William of Malmesbury who mention Harald sending ships to Æthelstan and even if the English sources do not mention Håkon there is a good possibility that Håkon was raised by Æthelstan. Æthelstan himself were known to raise several princes and a prince of Norway may not be worth mention compared to other like Louis of France. And as for physical evidence there is the christian burials with stone crosses dated to Håkons time in western Norway were Håkon ruled from. The saga correctly mentions Håkons attempt were more successful in western part, but theres little burials with crosses northwards and eastwards were the pagan peasants refused the new religion according the sagas.The crosses themselves are similliar crosses in England wich would mean England were the key provider for priest to Norway. As for institutions Håkon left behind him reforms in the Norwegian society which were the Leidang (peasant military) and Representasjonsting (assembly). The leidang ressemble the fyrd in England wich seems to even provide futher proof of the conection with Norway. The assembly was reformed because of the difficulty with having to deal with all the peasants and travel the king had to travel far to meet with them. So to reduce difficulty each county selected a represant to the assembly, it is not like the assembly in England, but its centralized aspect of it probably inspired the reforms. Both these institutions came to last into Sæmund and Ares time and futher.