Idea: Rule Britannia

[panther-anthro]

Mainly, this is an event that would fire if any Britannic power takes over all of Britannia *So England/Scotland/Ireland* this mainly would turn Scotland into Britannia for a nation. I think Brittania is the most suitable name for the nation, but It'd gain cores on all of England/Ireland/Scotland, accept Cymru,Gaelic,Inglis,and Anglosaxon, and can choose between Lothian, Meath, Wales, and Anglia. This is something that isn't really represented in the game, but would be an interesting thing to have in the game, it somewhat mirrors real life, but England isn't the nation who would be doing it obviously.

 

[Dell19]

Its probably too many cultures for one nation to have given that they would have eliminated the other major nation in the area and France is likely to still not be unified.

It would probably be a nice balance to have a situation where around 60-80% of the isles ends up being the right culture.

 

[panther-anthro]

We could make one 'culture' become dominant throughout all the isles. But I ment there should be a form Brittania event should exist, for any of the british powers.

 

[MattyG]

But ...

1. This is a RW historical outcome.

2. It is grounded in a more united history that began in before 1419

3. The same process could have happened in many locations, surely, so why are we signalling the Isles out for special treatment?

More likely, given the Interregnum History, is that someone finally gets around to coding up the formation of Albion, as proposed about two years ago, a union of Eire, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.

 

[panther-anthro]

Britannia was an idea far before this time frame Matty, as was France, if you can form France, you should be able to form Britannia. It's kind of one of those inevitable things.

 

[Garbon]

3. The same process could have happened in many locations, surely, so why are we signalling the Isles out for special treatment?

Well, as in the RW, the shape of the Isles (if only the English/Scottish/Welsh piece) kinda encourages a state to want to become sole master.

 

[panther-anthro]

The cartographer has a point matty.

 

[unmerged(90762)]

Hmm. Frankly, I've found all of the formed nations (that I can think of: France, Occitania, Asturias, Lombardy) to be an extreme disappointment. I see no reason to add this, except if we also add unified Germany (of a fashion), Iran, China, India, etc. Because, they all deserve the ability to form into one greatly dissatisfying super-state.

 

[MattyG]

Britannia was an idea far before this time frame Matty, as was France, if you can form France, you should be able to form Britannia. It's kind of one of those inevitable things.

It's not the formation of a larger state, but I also suggest that Brittania is not an inevitable notion. England, yes, Brittania, no. Not with such a strong Scotland and Eire that have triumphed over attempts at invasion and whose culture and language are still entact.

So, yes, we will surely have England formed, but I don't think the groundwork has been laid for the emergeance of Brittania, anymore than conquering France and Spain should mean that we have an event to form some Pan-Roman state.

 

[panther-anthro]

Matty, you do realize Scotland or Eirie themselves can form this state, not just the english minors right? It's more so implied for those two, that was my intent at least. There's no reason scotland wouldn't want to unify the isles.

 

[LordInsane]

So, yes, we will surely have England formed, but I don't think the groundwork has been laid for the emergeance of Brittania, anymore than conquering France and Spain should mean that we have an event to form some Pan-Roman state.

One difference, as has been mentioned, is that the geography of Britain encourages the creation of something united on the Isle to a far greater degree then any Pan-Roman state can be encouraged.
Also, Scotland could be a candidate for forming Brittania. Doesn't even need a tag change, just a flag change (Scotland would have big problems motivating just annexing the English Crown into Scotland directly, and due to Parliament, a personal union is not a full union: so, that leads to the OTL solution of uniting the Crowns under a Kingdom of Great Britain, or something like it, if Scotland manages to acquire England- granted, that sounds less likely to occur in Interregnum 2).

 

[panther-anthro]

One difference, as has been mentioned, is that the geography of Britain encourages the creation of something united on the Isle to a far greater degree then any Pan-Roman state can be encouraged.
Also, Scotland could be a candidate for forming Brittania. Doesn't even need a tag change, just a flag change (Scotland would have big problems motivating just annexing the English Crown into Scotland directly, and due to Parliament, a personal union is not a full union: so, that leads to the OTL solution of uniting the Crowns under a Kingdom of Great Britain, or something like it, if Scotland manages to acquire England- granted, that sounds less likely to occur in Interregnum 2).

;P As I've said before, Scotland has essentially taken up the role of England in Interregnum as far as I'm concerned.

 

[LordInsane]

Matty, you do realize Scotland or Eirie themselves can form this state, not just the english minors right? It's more so implied for those two, that was my intent at least. There's no reason scotland wouldn't want to unify the isles.

Eire probably wouldn't want to, though. Rather, they'd want to stop anyone else from doing it, because, for reasons of geographic position and population, they are not in a position to dominate the isles at all, but they are in a position to be dominated, if the other British Isle is united. Scotland has more of the manpower- and the Inglis blending culture- on their side, so they'd be more inclined to think they wouldn't be dominated by all those English, and from the perspective of the men in the capital, let alone those on the border, those fellows to the south aren't that different...

 

[panther-anthro]

Eire probably wouldn't want to, though. Rather, they'd want to stop anyone else from doing it, because, for reasons of geographic position and population, they are not in a position to dominate the isles at all, but they are in a position to be dominated, if the other British Isle is united. Scotland has more of the manpower- and the Inglis blending culture- on their side, so they'd be more inclined to think they wouldn't be dominated by all those English, and from the perspective of the men in the capital, let alone those on the border, those fellows to the south aren't that different...

I was just implying to make it fair in game terms, to allow Britannia to be formed by a 'formed' England, Scotland, and Eire

 

[LordInsane]

I was just implying to make it fair in game terms, to allow Britannia to be formed by a 'formed' England, Scotland, and Eire

Now that I think of it, shouldn't Little Britain be able to form it, if they take the full parliament-England path?
With such a fitting name, larger manpower resources then Eire, and possible very deep involvement on the isles, Brittany could be a candidate as well...

 

[MattyG]

I concede the notion of a united crown is a political solution to the regional conflict that could be suggested by any of the countries involved.

Given the fact that the region is dominated by Celtic cultures in Interregnum, the default version really ought to be a Celtic name, rather than something latinate or English?

And I still think that there need to sequenceques from both the Eire and Scotland sides which seek to unite them into Albion.

 

[panther-anthro]

Okay fine, we'll make it Albion, but then you have to decide what kind of method this would be done with. They could try and subdue the 'saxon' influences, and try and make all of Brittania 'pure' from the influences of foreign culture.

What provinces would Albion even include, for INT 1, and INT 2...?

 

[MattyG]

Okay fine, we'll make it Albion, but then you have to decide what kind of method this would be done with. They could try and subdue the 'saxon' influences, and try and make all of Brittania 'pure' from the influences of foreign culture.

What provinces would Albion even include, for INT 1, and INT 2...?

No, britannia AND Albion can be formed. One is a regional political concern, the other is a culturally-based entity.

Albion would be Eire, Wales and Scotland, plus locations that don't get a province, like the Isle of Man.

Cornwall (and Brittany) would fit within a Greater Albion, except that it is politically sensitive to do so. Until they are conquered, and the justification is then layered over it because the winners write history.

But they wouldn't get both. Eire, Wales and Scotland can form Albion (which can lead to cores on brittany) or they can form Brittania (which can lead to cores on 'England'), but they cannot get both.

Eire especially needs this at the moment, as it is a one trick pony. Colonization is its only interesting avenue. Now it would have more of a European focus as an option, though the prince would be losing the early explorers.

 

[panther-anthro]

So we're going to have an actual Britannia forming option, and Albion. That's cool, which nations are we going to let form Britannia

 

[LordInsane]

So we're going to have an actual Britannia forming option, and Albion. That's cool, which nations are we going to let form Britannia

Well, Wessex and Scotland would be the prime candidates, and York as well, if they are in a position to do so. I'd argue for Brittany, as if they take the full parlement path and gains England, or rather more the bits they can gain cores on, which is almost all of it, said Parlement would be dominated by *Englishmen* rather then people from Brittany proper, and they'd be inclined to more of a 'Brittania' point of view, in my opinion.