-
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.
And shouldn't the location be Constantinople? I've never heard of the city referred to as Byzantium after Constantine moved the eastern capital there.
I've searched a bit around Norway in 1066, and I've found this:
When Magnus' father died at Stamford Bridge in 1066, Magnus and his brother Olav Kyrre shared the regency untill Magnus died in 1069. Then Olav Kyrre reigned untill his death in 1093. I think this has to be showed in some way... As it was Olav that reigned most, maybe he should be used as king instead? Several places I found use just Olav's name, presumably because he ruled most of the time.
actually Olav Kyrres reign started in 1067, so magnus would be the right monarch to use. But I dont understand why they are using the yngling name on the norweagian dynasty I have never heard it being called that in norway. I have heard the Haarfagre dynasty, but never the ynglinge dynasty, isnt the ynglinge dynasty the name of a swdish dynasty also? you could call the norweagian dynasty sankt Olavs Dynasty, but then again thats not a term I have heard used. you could of course let the sons have their fathers name as a last name and only ad son on the end so that Magnus would be named Magnus Haraldson. And also wasnt trondheim or some other city exept oslo the capitol of norway back in 1066, I sure know it wasnt oslo since oslo first became the capitol in the 1290, when they got the same rights as Bergen, so I dont think the monarch should appear in oslo, but then again the norwaegian capitol moved very often in the middle ages, sometimes there were two capitols because there were two kings or three kings on the throne at the same time.
When Magnus' father died at Stamford Bridge in 1066, Magnus and his brother Olav Kyrre shared the regency untill Magnus died in 1069. Then Olav Kyrre reigned untill his death in 1093. I think this has to be showed in some way... As it was Olav that reigned most, maybe he should be used as king instead? Several places I found use just Olav's name, presumably because he ruled most of the time.
actually Olav Kyrres reign started in 1067, so magnus would be the right monarch to use. But I dont understand why they are using the yngling name on the norweagian dynasty I have never heard it being called that in norway. I have heard the Haarfagre dynasty, but never the ynglinge dynasty, isnt the ynglinge dynasty the name of a swdish dynasty also? you could call the norweagian dynasty sankt Olavs Dynasty, but then again thats not a term I have heard used. you could of course let the sons have their fathers name as a last name and only ad son on the end so that Magnus would be named Magnus Haraldson. And also wasnt trondheim or some other city exept oslo the capitol of norway back in 1066, I sure know it wasnt oslo since oslo first became the capitol in the 1290, when they got the same rights as Bergen, so I dont think the monarch should appear in oslo, but then again the norwaegian capitol moved very often in the middle ages, sometimes there were two capitols because there were two kings or three kings on the throne at the same time.
Originally posted by Surcouf
i got the exact title here
http://home.hccnet.nl/f.tc/ged2html/d0005/g0000046.html
and it may be dutchok i should have checked the langage of the website. if it is dutch (wich i don't know since i speak neither german or dutch) it should be because of the langage of the website
Markgraaf van de Oostmark is Dutch for sure.
Ireland.
Where does the title Pennath come from? I've never ever heard of it and I'm Irish (15 years of Irish history in school).
All the kingdoms of Ireland had chieftains who took the title Ri (usually translated as king). The most powerful Ri would usually take the tital Ard Ri (High King) and demand tribute from the others.
Link for useful information on Ireland around 1100AD
http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire1100.htm
Paul.
Where does the title Pennath come from? I've never ever heard of it and I'm Irish (15 years of Irish history in school).
All the kingdoms of Ireland had chieftains who took the title Ri (usually translated as king). The most powerful Ri would usually take the tital Ard Ri (High King) and demand tribute from the others.
Link for useful information on Ireland around 1100AD
http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire1100.htm
Paul.
Originally posted by Norgesvenn
Well, there was no Swedish kingdom in 1066, so why there's a king of Sweden is strange...
Oh yes there was, only that it didn't cover nearly as much as the later Sweden, only Götaland and the original Swedish kingdom. Sviariki/Sviaveldi/Svearike, whatever you call it, is translated into "Sweden", it's modern day historians who separate from different versions of the same name during different times
. The question that there was no Sweden before all areas were united is quite silly IMHO, as we all know the kingdom around Uppsala was named Sweden - or Svearike, which as we all also know is just an older version of Sverige - and that this name later lived on to apply to the whole united kingdom. AFAIK there was no common name of all of what now is Sweden, as the case was with Norway (if it was, it would be Sviþioþ I guess, but I doubt Götaland was included in that term). Well, the history of Sweden around the coming of Christianity is uncertain.
About Halsten. Yes, there is an uncertainity if he had been king. After Stenkil's death in 1066, the [what is the correct transation of gaut/göte!? I've seen everything from Goth to Geat - I always use Goth though, as that is what contemporary sources use] people of Västergötland supported Erik Stenkilsson as the new king and the Swedes Erik the Heathen Amundsson. These two killed themselves in a battle in 1067, and Halsten Stenkilsson was elected king instead. This according to Adam of Bremen (dead 1076).
Actually both of them were Christians. The Swedes drove him away already in 1070, but he returned as a coregent to Inge nine years later. He is mentioned as "king of the Wisigoths" in 1081.
It's a temporary name, as I have understood, as neither they could find her name. As said, she is usually called Ingamoder or simply Emundsdottir (Mother of Inge, daughter of Emund). The only name I've seen on her is Maria - a Christian name, which is fitting well as Halsten and his brothers were raised as true Christians.
Above spellings and such. His father was Ragnvaldsson, not Rognvaldsson. And then is the issue whether dottir or dotter should be used. In Modern Swedish it's dotter, in old Swedish it's dottir. Considering the word changed from dottir to dotter during the CK time period I don't really care
Good that you changed to Västergötland.
I don't really mind how you spell it, as it has been different through the ages (Gautland vestra, Vestergautland, Vestergötland, Västergötland), just as long you don't spell it "-getland", which means Goat-land, as in that animal. Edit: here's a nice little tree, based on the sagas, Saxo, Adam, Västgötalagen:
Note that Stenkil's wife is "En dotter" which isn't a name, but simply means "A daughter" and is the mysterious Emundsdottir.
Tree, respectfully stolen from this site.
Last edited:
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
Oh yes there was, only that it didn't cover nearly as much as the later Sweden, only Götaland and the original Swedish kingdom. Sviariki/Sviaveldi/Svearike, whatever you call it, is translated into "Sweden", it's modern day historians who separate from different versions of the same name during different times
First appearance of 'Sweden' is in Beowulf, 10th century, as Swíoríce but more common is Svi(th)io(dh) (borrowed from norwegian early), other written sources say Sua(th)iu(th) (in Lolland) and Sui(th)iu(th) (in Skåne).
This one can't be right (Boniface was a man, and Margrave of Tuscany, he died 6 May 1052). Beatrice of Lorraine (probably the same person given here as Beatrice of Bar) was his wife, and was not the Countess (not Duchess, but the later title may have been chosen for game reasons) but rather the regent for her daughter, the famous Matilda of Tuscany, born in 1046, who was the actual Countess at the time (and by 1066 she might not even have been under her mother's regency; I'm not sure about that though). I also suspect Beatrice would have been somewhat older than shown here, probably closer to, or over, 40, judging from the birth dates of a couple of her siblings, although I don't have a specific birth date for her. In 1054 she (Beatrice, that is) re-married to Godfrey the Bearded who shows up later in this list as ruler of Lower Lorraine. To add to the complication, her daughter Matilda married Godfrey's son, Godfrey the Hunchback, by an earlier marriage of his! I'm not sure of the date of that second marriage though, so Matilda might still be single in 1066.
His name would be better as "of Zähringen" or "of Zaehringen". I know he was at some point married to Richwara of Swabia, but I don't have dates for that, so it is possible that he was single in 1066; I'm not sure about that one.
I show his wife as Adelhied of Meissen (or of Lusatia) rather than Matilda, but those could well be two different language forms of the same name for all I know. His father was Adalbert and his mother was Adelheid.
No, as noted above he would have been married since 1054 to Beatrice of Lorraine, regent of Tuscany. He should also have a son by an earlier wife (and I think his daughter and eventual heir Ida was already born by this time, probably by an earlier wife, although I am not sure about that). His father was Gozelo I, Duke of both Upper and Lower Lorraine; I don't know who his mother was.
His father was Asclettin of Aversa.
His mother was called Fressenda.
His mother was Adelheid. I have him as "of Stade" rather than "Staden", but I don't think it makes much difference.
This is completely incorrect, as the Hautevilles had not yet conquered Salerno, and would not do so until 1076 (although they had grabbed most of it's territory outside of the city walls well before that, and the Pope continued to recognize Gisulf as prince long after he had lost de facto possession of even the city). The last Lombard Prince of Salerno was Gisulf II, who was the brother of Guiscard's wife, Sichelgaita. Gisulf's father was Waimar (or Guaimar) IV; I have no idea who his mother was. I don't know how old Gisulf was in 1066, but he was associated in the rule of his father over Salerno by 1042, and was still alive in 1088 (when he briefly managed to grab Amalfi).
I hope it is noted that William of Normandy has two sons: Robert, and William II(Rufus), also Henry I was in the womb at the time, so he should be born...
The correct name of the city is Pamplona.
Sancho had a nickname, "el de Peñalén" which translates into the one from Peñalén or just from Peñalén. In the same way, his father Garcia was the one from Nájera.
Also Jimenez is the name of the dynastie, and he had his own surname "Garcés" meaning son of Garcia. His father Garcia was Garcia Sanchez, son of Sancho. He would be Sancho Garces Jimenez and his father Garcia Sanchez Jimenez.
Estefania is written with an E.
In these years the kings used the title 'king of Pamplona'. 'King of Navarra' didn't appear untill Garcia Ramirez IV and Sancho VI. Anyway Navarra can be used to simplify, as it was just a name change and the kingdom was the same.
Like Sancho, Ramirez is his real surname, so it would be Sancho Ramirez Jimenez. And his father was Ramiro Sanchez Jimenez.
AFAIK, his mother was Gilberga Hermesinda of Roger of Bigorra
The correct nickname of his father was el Curvo or el Jorobado. However, these and el Viejo are in Castilian. I think they should be in Catalan or even better in English (the Old and the Humpbacked).
And his mather was Sancha of Castile, Sancha de Castilla
@ Nikolaï: I'll just leave Magnus for the moment. As the game will use a dynamic dynastical system, there's no set reason for Magnus to die in 1067 (EDIT: this SOURCE tells me he died in 1069 )
@ historycaesar: unless I can get any kind of evidence of confirmation, I'll just leave it to "Basileus of Byzantium." I'll try to find some info though.
@ Marcus Aurelius: the "location" refers to the province, not the city. That's why Philip Capet is in "Ile de France" and not "Paris."
@ Sandolfon: and Gwynedd it is. Cheers!
@ Stibogis: as I was telling Nikolaï (see bove), I'll leave Magnus for the moment. As for the "ynglinge", IIRC, the two royal families in Sweden and Norway were two branches of the same family (EDIT: check this SOURCE) I'll leave Oslo as his location until I can find some more info.
@ Solitair: OK, I changed all of them.
)@ historycaesar: unless I can get any kind of evidence of confirmation, I'll just leave it to "Basileus of Byzantium." I'll try to find some info though.
@ Marcus Aurelius: the "location" refers to the province, not the city. That's why Philip Capet is in "Ile de France" and not "Paris."
@ Sandolfon: and Gwynedd it is. Cheers!
@ Stibogis: as I was telling Nikolaï (see bove), I'll leave Magnus for the moment. As for the "ynglinge", IIRC, the two royal families in Sweden and Norway were two branches of the same family (EDIT: check this SOURCE) I'll leave Oslo as his location until I can find some more info.
@ Solitair: OK, I changed all of them.
@ Styrbiorn: I think the data Sergeï sent me settles the case of Halsten's mother.
I'll edit some more stuff (ref. bgibbard's and Gorion's posts) tomorrow. Right now I have to get some sleep.
Thanks a thousand to all of you who posted here.
I'll edit some more stuff (ref. bgibbard's and Gorion's posts) tomorrow. Right now I have to get some sleep.
Thanks a thousand to all of you who posted here.
I must have written wrong... He did indeed die in 1069 after what my sources say too.
He did indeed die in 1069 after what my sources say too.
Basileus = Greek for King, though it was used by the Byzantines, everyone else refered to them him/her as Emperor of Byzantium or Emperor of the Greeks
unmerged(2920)
Dark Surcouf ne meurt jamais
it is the official title. it is commonly agreed that when they changed the official title from emperor to basileus it was the expression that the eastern roman empire was more greek than roman.
I guess I am wrong, but I still had to look it up and in my sorces it said that harald hårfagre grounded the new dynasty Hårfagre ætta, but his dad was from the dynasty ynglinge ætta. Is it just me or dont you think that the wasa dynasty still would have been named wasa though his dad or mom was realated to the oldenborgs in denmark, just an example. And oslo first became capitol under Haakon V Magnusson in 1299. here is a link to a page saying that it is of course in norweagian though
http://home.online.no/~roynorma/over_a/osikt1.htm
http://home.online.no/~roynorma/over_a/osikt1.htm
Originally posted by Eochaid
@ Marcus Aurelius: the "location" refers to the province, not the city. That's why Philip Capet is in "Ile de France" and not "Paris."
Wouldn't the province be Thrace, though? AFAIK, Byzantium was a city, not a province?
P.S. It's Marcus Valerius, not Marcus Aurelius.
Originally posted by Marcus Valerius
Wouldn't the province be Thrace, though? AFAIK, Byzantium was a city, not a province?
P.S. It's Marcus Valerius, not Marcus Aurelius.
No, Thrace is an old name for the area from Macedonia to the Sea of Marmara and up into old Rumelia, if Andrinople or several other cities are included, then the province should be Constantinople as it was seperate from the rest of Thrace. The Empire of 1453 only had Constantinople and the Morea, so in a late CK scenario, this will be much more historically accurate...