Cool name for Danelaw Empire??

[DreadLindwyrm]

As for Angels, they are clearly Valkyries whom the Christians - cursed with rarely, if ever, being selected for Valhalla - have confused for something else.

Michael , guardian of Heaven, is either Heimdall (guardian of the bridge) or Tyr (warrior prince).
Gabriel, as the messenger is Hermóðr .

The warrior angels mentioned are probably the einherijar, or the lesser aesir and vanir.

 

[WJS]

HOWEVER, Queen Mab is a notable exception to the you-should-marry-a-faery rule. "Queen Mab" is known to be a Celtic/Vanaheimr aspect of Nerthus, the cthonic Earth-Mother, Queen of Witches and First Daughter of Night (literally; her mother was the primordial jotuness, Nott, the ancient personification of Night who arose from the mists of Elivagar in the Time Before the Gods). For many turnings of the wheel, Mab was the matriarchal ruler of the Vanir gods, a sort of feminine anti-Odin; she is credited as the great architect/inventor of sorcery (seidr), and as the mother of a staggering number of divine beings - including Frey and Freyja (with her brother-husband, Njordr), Gefjon (via parthenogenisis), Gullveig (the Thot who nearly destroyed the gods, and whose Begonening triggered the Aesir/Vanir War), and even the greatest of all the gods, Thor (with Odin). Like Loki, Mab became extremely evil over time, and plotted the downfall of the Aesir - she was the primary belligerent of the Aesir/Vanir War, and though she was eventually slain by Odin himself, Mab was such a powerful sorceress that echoes of her magic persist to this day, causing all manner of blight, pestilence, bewitchment, deviancy, and necromancy, to afflict the good people of the Empire.

Right, and that's the difference between the Christian-syncretic pagan faith and the folk-syncretic Christian faith. The Fairwardens believe in God, and not in the Aesir/Vanir. The marriage to Mab is one performed out of royal duty. Marriage creates an alliance between fae and humanity, preventing the worst wrath from the Otherworld.

It's horrendously difficult to get the people in Africa converted to Fairwardens, but the rulers throughout the de jure Empire of Mali have all converted of their own accord.

 

[zaboli]

The Norse usually just named their stuff after how a land looked like or who inhabited them. For example, Denmark is believed to be the translation of flat woodland/marches. Sweden (or Sverige) is believed to have come from the words swe (which means one's own) and rike (realm).

I think it would make sense to name the empire after an important character of your ancestors and put -Rike or -Rige after it. Whatever sounds the coolest, Ragnarrige for example doesn't sound that good...

You could also name it Bretland or Nyttrik (New kingdom).

 

[lunelune2413]

North Sea Empire isn't historic, it is a historic concept, that is a retroactive concept. Danelaw was never a polity but a law, much like Mercian law, West Saxon law, Jute law, Scanian law, so having any level nation be called Danelaw is ridiculous.

Giving an imperial title to the Norse goes against all the immersion, the Norse did not have a concept of an emperor. Honestly, why do you need an empire to begin with? Isn't the game already easy enough?

I started reading your message thinking "Why does this have so many disagrees? He is making a lot of sense". Then I got to the second part and I understood why

 

[DorostheConquer]

Right, and that's the difference between the Christian-syncretic pagan faith and the folk-syncretic Christian faith. The Fairwardens believe in God, and not in the Aesir/Vanir.

But you believe in Mab! Mab is the (un)dead Queen of the Vanir, so, logically, the Fairwardens must ipso facto also believe in the Vanir.

And Drengr believe in God, too. His name is Odin, and He's one of many Gods who play with the lives of mortal men.

Marriage creates an alliance between fae and humanity, preventing the worst wrath from the Otherworld.

Right, that's my point. Marriage creates an alliance between you and Queen Mab. You don't need to marry her to prevent her wrath! She's already been defeated and subjugated, by the Aesir. And you certainly don't want to be her ally!

If you want your Emperor to have an all-powerful divine marriage that gives blanket protection against evil magic and the wrath of the Otherworld, then the obvious candidate is Freyja. When Odin took Freyja as his concubine, it symbolized not only His divine right to rule the British Isles, but also His supremacy over Tir Annwn. So long as you hold Freyja the Maiden of Battle in your heart, you have nothing to fear from elves or elf-trolls.

It's horrendously difficult to get the people in Africa converted to Fairwardens, but the rulers throughout the de jure Empire of Mali have all converted of their own accord.

Africans readily converted to Drengrism, and in fact one branch of our family - House Sigurd-Sardinia, High Kings of the Alizean Islands - became Emperors of Kanem-Borno through diplomacy and marriage. After several generations of factional infighting and the unlawful deposition of his grandmother by a Bori cousin, the Emperor of Midgard eventually had to step in and conduct a peacekeeping operation, claiming the throne of Kanem-Borno for himself - but despite that one minor setback, Africans have been very eager to renounce the jotuns of Muspelheim of their own accord, offering their women, their zebra pelts, and their Malinesian gold, up to the glory of Just-as-High!

 

[Chlodio]

there really was an "North Sea Empire" consisting of England, Norway, and Denmark, during the reign of Cnut. It could have been a lasting polity, too, except like the Carolignian Empire and the Mongol Empire and the Macedonian Empire, Cnut's successors were unable to keep it together.

It wasn't an empire nor a polity. It was a collection of personal unions, a composite monarchy. If it was a polity the legislature would have been subject to another branch, but each constituency just shared a monarch.

(honestly, would you be the bloke who goes up to Augustus Caesar and says "We can't have an Emperor! We Romans don't have a concept of an Emperor!" ?)

Octavian wasn't an emperor in a monarchial sense, more like a lifetime dictator (the Roman office of dictator was temporary), the concept of emperor didn't really exist at the time, the closest thing being the Persian/Alexander's "king of kings", Octavian's title of imperator in a sense just meant commander, the monarchial connotation developed graduall

you may want to look up something called "the Varangians". I won't spoil it, as it's actually a really interesting bit of historical trivia that I think you'll enjoy, but I do believe you'll find that the Norse were actually WELL aware of what an emperor was, even if - historically - they did not have one amongst themselves.

Do you have any evidence that the Varangians considered the ruler of Constantinople to be anything else but another foreign king with a different title?

 

[Kapitalisti]

North Sea Empire isn't historic, it is a historic concept, that is a retroactive concept. Danelaw was never a polity but a law, much like Mercian law, West Saxon law, Jute law, Scanian law, so having any level nation be called Danelaw is ridiculous.

Giving an imperial title to the Norse goes against all the immersion, the Norse did not have a concept of an emperor. Honestly, why do you need an empire to begin with? Isn't the game already easy enough?

You REALLY seemed to miss the entire point here. This isn't a thread asking for a formable, premade "North Sea Empire" title. It's about suggestions what to name a custom empire. And I recommend "Skyrim".

 

[jumbi]

And I recommend "Skyrim".

I'll see your "Skyrim" and raise you a "Searim". This is Britain we're talking about after all

 

[DorostheConquer]

It wasn't an empire nor a polity. It was a collection of personal unions, a composite monarchy. If it was a polity the legislature would have been subject to another branch, but each constituency just shared a monarch.

Nothing you wrote contradicts what I said, the green bit contradicts what you said in the red bit, and the blue bit sounds like as good as place as any for an empire to start, doesn't it?

Octavian wasn't an emperor in a monarchial sense, more like a lifetime dictator (the Roman office of dictator was temporary), the concept of emperor didn't really exist at the time, the closest thing being the Persian/Alexander's "king of kings", Octavian's title of imperator in a sense just meant commander, the monarchial connotation developed graduall

Julius was dictator-for-life, Augustus was (as you have already conceded!) imperator - i.e. emperor. The "monarchial connotations" (sic) of the title grew from Augustus' reign - which, if you'll notice, is the original point you are (supposedly) arguing against: that is to say, any given idea must have it's start somewhere, and claiming that a given idea did not exist before it was conceived, and that, therefore, a given idea cannot ever come into existence, is absurd.

And

Octavian's title of imperator in a sense just meant commander,

"In a sense"? lol, OK, in a really unimportant and misleading sense, maybe. But in a relevant sense? No.

The word "imperator" DID NOT mean "commander". While that may sometimes be offered as the literal translation, the English word "commander" doesn't do the title any justice at all. Within Roman society, "imperator" was like a weird cross between a President Elect, the latest winner of the Superbowl, some dude who just received the Nobel Prize in War, the current WWE World Heavyweight Champion, and Miss America. A better translation might be "glorious supreme commander", and the fact that Augustus not only made himself the undisputed WWE World Heavyweight Champion for life, but also ensured that his "son" would get the belt without even having to fight for it at Wrestlemania, is a pretty clear indication of how radically the Roman world had been shaken up by the time Augustus secured his power.

Do you have any evidence that the Varangians considered the ruler of Constantinople to be anything else but another foreign king with a different title?

Do you have any evidence that the Varangians didn't?

 

[newtlord]

Do you have any evidence that the Varangians didn't?

I don't have any evidence that the Varangians didn't worship Thoth-Amon and speak fluent Japanese, but that doesn't mean I should go around claiming that they did.

(That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.)

 

[DorostheConquer]

I don't have any evidence that the Varangians didn't worship Thoth-Amon and speak fluent Japanese, but that doesn't mean I should go around claiming that they did.

(That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.)

That's not applicable.

First, it's not up to us to refute a wild claim that Chlodio has provided no evidence for.

(semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, or "(citation needed)".)

Second, the idea that Varangians were cognizant of what an Emperor was, is in no way equivalent to the idea that Varangians worshipped Thoth-Amon and spoke fluent Japanese.

("a false analogy occurs when someone argues using a faulty analogy and thus draws a conclusion that doesn’t logically follow from the argument’s premises.")

Third, both you and he are failing to acknowledge the fact that the Varangians had close and intimate knowledge of the Roman Emperor; they traded with him extensively, and even served as his personal bodyguard. For the Varangians to not know what an Emperor was, despite having this intimate knowledge of the Imperial system, would require us to assume a massively complex chain of bumpkin-level ignorance on their part.

(pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, or "the simplest answer is usually correct".)



And please don't get me started on "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.", which is incorrect, and - paradoxically - if it were true, would contain within itself ample justification for me to dismiss it out of hand.

(I say "please don't" because I don't want to feed a potential thread derailment, especially given how well this thread was going otherwise. On the other hand, it's not every day I get to type a rebutall against Hitchens and his philosophically-bankrupt formulations, so... the temptation is there! Where is Matthew 6:13 when you need it...? Perhaps I'll have to convert to the Fairwarden Church after all...)

 

[newtlord]

What's the crazy claim Chlodio is making? As far as I can tell, the claim he advanced was that the norse, including the Varangians, saw the Emperor in Constantinople as a bigger, more powerful version of their kings, which seems at least as plausible as the claim that they understood him as something fundamentally different than the kings at home. I agree that neither of these alternatives can be advanced as strongly preferable in the absence of any evidence presented here by either party (and it is probably impossible to settle conclusively at this late date, barring the discovery of The Memoirs and Reflections of Sigurd Sigudson, Late of Miklagard, or at least an uncommonly explanatory infodump in one of the sagas), but the phrasing you used resembles phrasing used too often by those attempting to distract from the lack of evidence for their crazy allegations, and I snapped at the delivery rather than the message. For that I apologize.

 

[DorostheConquer]

What's the crazy claim Chlodio is making? As far as I can tell, the claim he advanced was that the norse, including the Varangians, saw the Emperor in Constantinople as a bigger, more powerful version of their kings,

No, that's the claim he's opposing. Chlodio does not believe that the Norse saw the Emperor as a bigger, more powerful version of their kings - which would be true! The Emperor WAS a bigger, mroe powerful version of their kings, with his biggness and his power being the definitional basis for his Emperorhood.

Rather, Chlodio is asserting (or appears to be asserting; it's difficult to tell sometimes) that the Norse saw NO difference between the Emperor and their kings. He believes that the Norse had no concept of Emperorhood - that is to say, no concept of a king who is bigger and more powerful than all the other kings - and thus, the Norse (and indeed, per Chlodio's initial post, every other culture too) should be unable to form Empires in CK3.

but the phrasing you used resembles phrasing used too often by those attempting to distract from the lack of evidence for their crazy allegations, and I snapped at the delivery rather than the message. For that I apologize.

Oh, no need to apologize! I always like being able to have lengthy arguments, and I don't take it personally; I apologize too if it sounded that way! Also, I'm aware that the formulation to which you were responding wasn't the most strongly-worded (I'd actually anticipated Chlodio trying to argue that I was making him prove a negative), but the original draft of my post had, like, five paragraphs explaining why the Varangians couldn't possibly be dumb enough to either not know what an emperor was, or to fail to recognize the relative power imbalance between the Roman emperor and the petty kings to whom they were accustomed. But, in the end, I scrapped everything but the first sentence, as I felt that Chlodio's (non) argument in that regard, did not warrant such a high degree of scrutiny.

 

[Husein]

Kingdom of Sigurdrifa - Kingdom of or won by Victory. Also a name of a Valkyrie as well.

 

[MachopPower69]

Probably the better ones are from the Nordic cultures like Storbritannia (Norwegian), Storbritannien (Danish and Swedish) or Bretland (Icelandic). Or you could combine Dane and law to produce: Danilogum (Icelandic, the o is double dotted), Danskerlov (Danish and Norwegian) or Danelag (Swedish).

Since Ragnar was King of Sweden, as the story goes, the best options are possibly Swedish. But since Ivar was the ruler of the Hebrides, a mixture of Gaelic and Swedish could be a good choice (Storbreatainn, mixing Storbritannien and Breatainn; Danelagh, which is its other name).

 

[JonathanViking]

North Sea Empire isn't historic, it is a historic concept, that is a retroactive concept. Danelaw was never a polity but a law, much like Mercian law, West Saxon law, Jute law, Scanian law, so having any level nation be called Danelaw is ridiculous.

Giving an imperial title to the Norse goes against all the immersion, the Norse did not have a concept of an emperor. Honestly, why do you need an empire to begin with? Isn't the game already easy enough?

.

 

[Chlodio]

Because an "Emperor" doesn't have to be an Emperor in the sense of Rome.

It can be the High King who rules over the Kings of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England, Scotland, and so on, with them in turn ruling over the "kings" of the on-map duchies, who rule over the "kings" of the on-map counties. In Ireland, that even continues further down until you get to the "kings" of individual tribes in valleys who wouldn't even register as a barony.

But for the sanity of players they're given different localisations to allow at a glance recognition of their tier in text-only interactions or references. Otherwise "King Alfraed has been found sleeping with the wife of King Bjorn" can need a lot of scrambling around to place the two of them, especially where you've only got the short version of the popup.

A high king isn't the equivalent of an emperor.

Nor does the king of kings is automatically existed for every culture, it evidently didn't for the Norse, as highlighted by the 12th-century work of Gesta Danorum, where the author fantasizes about a time when Denmark conquered all of Scandinavia and then some:

So the realms of Frode embraced Russia on the east, and on the west were bounded by the Rhine​

Even then he is described as a king, many of his governors are king as well because the rank ultimately doesn't determine who can be subject to who, as can be observed on how many kings of England treated the king of Scotland as their vassal.

 

[Chlodio]

You REALLY seemed to miss the entire point here. This isn't a thread asking for a formable, premade "North Sea Empire" title. It's about suggestions what to name a custom empire. And I recommend "Skyrim".

I didn't not, you missed my point. There were suggestions about the North Sea Empire, and I stated why I thought that was a bad pick.

The "monarchial connotations" (sic) of the title grew from Augustus' reign

It did not, during the Principate, the monarchial connotations were avoided, the imperator was just one of many titles they carried. Monarchial connotations came to be during the Dominate, when Diocletian declared himself a god and added "lord" to the imperial titles.

No, that's the claim he's opposing. Chlodio does not believe that the Norse saw the Emperor as a bigger, more powerful version of their kings - which would be true! The Emperor WAS a bigger, mroe powerful version of their kings, with his biggness and his power being the definitional basis for his Emperorhood.

Rather, Chlodio is asserting (or appears to be asserting; it's difficult to tell sometimes) that the Norse saw NO difference between the Emperor and their kings. He believes that the Norse had no concept of Emperorhood - that is to say, no concept of a king who is bigger and more powerful than all the other kings

Clearly, the Norse would be able to recognize a powerful ruler, that isn't the claim I'm making. But that different title wouldn't be recognized to be different from that of kings. Think about, in their distant travelers these Norsemen men would have come across hundred different rulers with different titles and varying degrees of power. To them, these titles would be foreign, but you are suggesting somehow they knew all these other rulers were just kings, while the guy in Constantinople must have been a tier above all other kings.

and thus, the Norse (and indeed, per Chlodio's initial post, every other culture too) should be unable to form Empires in CK3.

I mean, I'd prefer if the ability to form an empire was an Early Medieval innovation. That would certainly give a reason for the tribals to reform to feudal, which at the moment is very overpowered.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

A high king isn't the equivalent of an emperor.

Nor does the king of kings is automatically existed for every culture, it evidently didn't for the Norse, as highlighted by the 12th-century work of Gesta Danorum, where the author fantasizes about a time when Denmark conquered all of Scandinavia and then some:

So the realms of Frode embraced Russia on the east, and on the west were bounded by the Rhine​

Even then he is described as a king, many of his governors are king as well because the rank ultimately doesn't determine who can be subject to who, as can be observed on how many kings of England treated the king of Scotland as their vassal.

Sorry, but "So the realms of Frode embraced Russia" etc could equally be applied poetically to the HRE. "So the realms of Charlemagne embraced the Pyrenees in the West, and the Rhine in the East", and apply to an Emperor or a King.

Nothing in that statement says what rank this Frode would be considered - and in game terms it's worse. For the Irish if we wanted to call everybody the sort of title they held it'd be nightmarish - all of them from single tribes that wouldn't even count as a barony up used variants of "Rí" at one point or another. For Norse and Anglo-Saxons, spreading the title of "King" over three ranks will be painful.

Now, if his governors are kings (in the sense of *in game* kings rather than dukes titled as kings), what is the in game rank for someone who rules over Kings? It's, at least behind the scenes, an Emperor. However that is represented, an Overking/High King/Arch King type position *may* speculatively be appropriate where a culture unites an area of land beyond what the historical precedent allows for.

Note that I'm using "High King" loosely in the section you quote, as I don't have a good alternate title to use for the position. I'm using it in a "I'm a king with subject kings, so my title has been made a bit fancier" sense.
Perhaps the "High King" should be just titled "King", with the "King-tier" vassals demoted half a grade to Prince or some such - but that will potentially be confusing. Either way having a 4th playable tier title of some sort available for the ahistoric empires allows for alt histories where the dominant European power isn't the HRE, ERE, or Francia, but is based in another region.


Ultimately, what does that 4th tier represent? With the direction CKII, and now CKIII have gone, it appears that it represents a ruler who can have vassal kings and use them to rule large swathes of territory. It's not just the big historic empires, but alternate possible regional hegemons.

 

[Chlodio]

Nothing in that statement says what rank this Frode would be considered

It wasn't meant to, I just referenced it to show the scale of his realm. As I implied it he is referred to as a king after it:

Elated beyond measure with his deed, he ventured to sue for Frode's daughter; but, finding the king deaf to him, he asked Erik, who was ruling Sweden, to help him​

Now, if his governors are kings (in the sense of *in game* kings rather than dukes titled as kings), what is the in game rank for someone who rules over Kings? It's, at least behind the scenes, an Emperor. However that is represented, an Overking/High King/Arch King type position *may* speculatively be appropriate where a culture unites an area of land beyond what the historical precedent allows for.

They appear to be petty kings, Saxo says there were 170 kings, he mentions that one of them governs Orkey, another rules Estonia. Petty kings are depicted in the game as dukes.