No Scottish wars of independence?

[High_King]

All I know is we won in 1314 and we'll win again in 2014 .

I don't really understand the bid for Scottish Independence; I know the Union wasn't always rosey but wasn't the first king of Britain Scottish? (King James VI/I) In my mind that puts Scotland on an entirely equal footing with England...but I don't know, I'm Irish, and our recent history of nationalism isn't all that exciting. But all this current affairs stuff is neither here nor there.

I found it quite odd when I started a 1337 (Hundred Years' War) start as an Italian count once that...the war never broke out. France just rode off into the sunset with its stolen crown (historically I side with England on this one; they were robbed, the French knew who was the rightful king and they lied, dammit, they lied!) and no-one was any the wiser. I was quite disappointed, I was hoping to have a nice big war to enjoy watching while I went about my various Italian dealings.

Maybe put in a mechanic where important wars connected with each start date break out as they should if all parties are under AI control (if not it's up to the player to start them).

 

[spinoza013]

I don't really understand the bid for Scottish Independence;

correct

 

[Olix]

Well no, Nationalism wasn't a defined idea or word back then. Nationalism itself was in its infancy; people were not fighting for the country itself, but the people that live within its borders. Frankly this sort of response is to be expected, given the fact that Edward chose to allow the Lords in Scotland the rights of Primae Noctis.

I just popped into this thread to point out that Primae Noctis isn't a real thing, it's a myth. Or so wikipedia claims, anyway. Braveheart isn't a very historical film.

 

[JonStryker]

Well no, Nationalism wasn't a defined idea or word back then. Nationalism itself was in its infancy; people were not fighting for the country itself, but the people that live within its borders. Frankly this sort of response is to be expected, given the fact that Edward chose to allow the Lords in Scotland the rights of Primae Noctis.

These sort of revolutions are already somewhat portrayed, I think the event goes something like "The peasants have taken up arms against your oppressive rule" And a one or two thousand man army spawns in the province of question. These rebellions are very easily crushed, sometimes just by raising the levies in the actual province, not to mention the complete lifelessness of the rebels, they just sit there waiting for the inhabitants of the castle to surrender. Once they've conquered the County they don't even move on, just sack and loot the holdings which is, in my knowledge, quite counter-intuitive.

To get to the point, there needs to be a proper revolt against the English when/if they control part/all of Scotland, mainly backed by the peasants. Possibly the Noble pushing for the restoration of Scotland could have the option to betray the peasants and give in to English rule, or continue fighting and restore its independence.

"Given the fact that Edward chose to allow (...) rights of Primae Noctis"? There's no proof that there was a law like this in England/Scotland at any point in history.

 

[lokomoko]

I just popped into this thread to point out that Primae Noctis isn't a real thing, it's a myth. Or so wikipedia claims, anyway. Braveheart isn't a very historical film.

"the simple reason why we are dealing with a myth here rests in the surprising fact that practically all writers who make any such claims have never been able or willing to cite any trustworthy source, if they have any." That is essentially where they base the myth on. If you think about it, there isn't going to be any trustworthy sources looking back on it, it's simply just an obscure law. If you were Lord, you wouldn't want all of history knowing your horrible secret, therefore you would most likely hide it from the history books. Only unofficial scholars would actually document anything about it, which leads to people citing it as a myth.

 

[lokomoko]

I don't really understand the bid for Scottish Independence; I know the Union wasn't always rosey but wasn't the first king of Britain Scottish? (King James VI/I) In my mind that puts Scotland on an entirely equal footing with England...but I don't know, I'm Irish, and our recent history of nationalism isn't all that exciting. But all this current affairs stuff is neither here nor there.

I found it quite odd when I started a 1337 (Hundred Years' War) start as an Italian count once that...the war never broke out. France just rode off into the sunset with its stolen crown (historically I side with England on this one; they were robbed, the French knew who was the rightful king and they lied, dammit, they lied!) and no-one was any the wiser. I was quite disappointed, I was hoping to have a nice big war to enjoy watching while I went about my various Italian dealings.

Maybe put in a mechanic where important wars connected with each start date break out as they should if all parties are under AI control (if not it's up to the player to start them).

Yeah, I do hope Paradox does a DLC covering all of this stuff, it annoyed me too.

 

[yezhanquan]

Yeah, I do hope Paradox does a DLC covering all of this stuff, it annoyed me too.

I coined it a History DLC. Give us starts like EU3, where people are fighting each other on the dates where they are supposed to.

 

[BritNavFan]

If you think about it, there isn't going to be any trustworthy sources looking back on it, it's simply just an obscure law. If you were Lord, you wouldn't want all of history knowing your horrible secret, therefore you would most likely hide it from the history books. Only unofficial scholars would actually document anything about it, which leads to people citing it as a myth.

First of all, such a law would really tick off the Church. They were tracking details such as who was Bishop of Greenland at the time. A law passed in England by a nominally.Christian King that gave the finger to the sanctimony of marriage would be much better documented by the Church than the 18th Bishop of Greenland.

Secondly, the stuff that happened in this period isn't as obscure as you think it is. We know what Edward fought with his parents about when he was doing the teenage rebellion thing. We know the dates on which he arranged tournaments. Etc. etc. etc. We know what laws he passed, and we would especially know about such a scandalous law as this.

Thirdly, by its nature, a law can't be a secret.

Fourthly, rulers generally don't consider the things they do shameful (no matter how shameful those things may seem to outsiders).

Fifthly, what's in this for Edward? He and his wife had 15 or 16 children. They liked each other. If he had wanted something outside of marriage, that sort of thing's not hard to get for the richest and most powerful man in the kingdom. And he spent very little of his time in Scotland. So your alleged law wouldn't benefit him. It would "benefit" the men who were sent out to administer (read: collect taxes from) the Scots, who would be roughly the equivalent of middle management types today. So why would a king, who was generally one of the most competent of England's kings, pass a really, really, stupid law such as this, just so middle management types could rape Scottish women?

Oh, and sixthly, Edward conquered Wales before he invaded Scotland. So why wouldn't he pass this law in Wales, too?

We know that Edward was constantly getting rebelled against in England because of all the taxes he tried to enforce in order to pay for his wars in Wales, Scotland, and France. We know that he tried to draft the Scots to help fight his French wars. These are more than adequate motivations for the Scots rebellions. The idea that the English decided that raping the wives of the men whom they wanted to protect their backs in their French Wars was a good idea is ludicrous.

 

[Thure]

"the simple reason why we are dealing with a myth here rests in the surprising fact that practically all writers who make any such claims have never been able or willing to cite any trustworthy source, if they have any." That is essentially where they base the myth on. If you think about it, there isn't going to be any trustworthy sources looking back on it, it's simply just an obscure law. If you were Lord, you wouldn't want all of history knowing your horrible secret, therefore you would most likely hide it from the history books. Only unofficial scholars would actually document anything about it, which leads to people citing it as a myth.

In nthis times, there aren't history books... Chronics eventually. But I don't like this myth. Why did you know, that the lords have this secret? The middles ages aren't so bad like the early modern period.

 

[rashtrakut]

I found it quite odd when I started a 1337 (Hundred Years' War) start as an Italian count once that...the war never broke out. France just rode off into the sunset with its stolen crown (historically I side with England on this one; they were robbed, the French knew who was the rightful king and they lied, dammit, they lied!) and no-one was any the wiser.

The English claims wereweak. If it was based on female succession the true heiress was Joanna doaughter of Louis X. However, after her posthomous brother John I died her uncles Philip V and Charles IV seized both France and Navarre. She at least got Navarre back when Charles IV died because the Valois had no claim to it. The rationalization for disinheriting her was the adultery of her mother, but there does not seem to have been any real doubts about her paternity. Her son Charles II the Bad dis half heartedly make some claims, but Navarre was too weak to do anything on its own.

It gets even worse with Henry V. Once again, if the claim comes from female descent the English claimant should have been Edmund Earl of March (the rightful and disinherited king of England to begin with) and then his sister Anne the mother of the Yorkist claimant.

But then there are a lot f such claimants in history. Alfred the Great took the throne over his brother Aethelred's sons (the excuse was that an adult was needed), yet after his death Alfred's Edward took the throne, In Scotland the true heirs should have been the sons of Malcolm III from his first marriage. But after Edgar I got the throne with English help they fade away from history.

 

[rashtrakut]

I found it quite odd when I started a 1337 (Hundred Years' War) start as an Italian count once that...the war never broke out. France just rode off into the sunset with its stolen crown (historically I side with England on this one; they were robbed, the French knew who was the rightful king and they lied, dammit, they lied!) and no-one was any the wiser.

The English claims wereweak. If it was based on female succession the true heiress was Joanna doaughter of Louis X. However, after her posthomous brother John I died her uncles Philip V and Charles IV seized both France and Navarre. She at least got Navarre back when Charles IV died because the Valois had no claim to it. The rationalization for disinheriting her was the adultery of her mother, but there does not seem to have been any real doubts about her paternity. Her son Charles II the Bad dis half heartedly make some claims, but Navarre was too weak to do anything on its own.

It gets even worse with Henry V. Once again, if the claim comes from female descent the English claimant should have been Edmund Earl of March (the rightful and disinherited king of England to begin with) and then his sister Anne the mother of the Yorkist claimant.

But then there are a lot f such claimants in history. Alfred the Great took the throne over his brother Aethelred's sons (the excuse was that an adult was needed), yet after his death Alfred's son Edward took the throne, In Scotland the true heirs should have been the sons of Malcolm III from his first marriage. But after Edgar I got the throne with English help they fade away from history.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

In Scotland the true heirs should have been the sons of Malcolm III from his first marriage. But after Edgar I got the throne with English help they fade away from history.

Not only that, but several of Malcolm's children from his second marriage are in fact missing in CK II.

 

[Voy]

Not only that, but several of Malcolm's children from his second marriage are in fact missing in CK II.

It appears we (the reporting community) will have to get back to work before Christmas even. ^^

A problem with adding historical wars are the dates. Most wars have no known precise start date, only years and possibly month, same with the Crusades, and I think PI want to be precise if they can.

Other than that, why are we discussion it and not reporting with examples?

 

[Ols]

A lot of what I've read in this thread appears to be nonsense and speculation. Any Scottish War of Independence can easily be represented as either a rebellion or a war between a smaller Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. Independence revolts where a portion of a territory deposes its foreign lord and becomes ruled by a native character are hard to represent and could easily be a game breaker. It's nice to see that Scottish people have pride in their wars against English aggression, but most wars that occurred through potential start dates are not enter-able mid way through and would be a pain to code. If you want to secure Scotland's independence, find a date where Scotland has lost land to England and start de jure wars for its territory.

Also, Primae Noctis is nonsense. If you start citing the existence of that then you're not really qualified to describe exactly how Scotland fought England in the 14th century either.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Other than that, why are we discussion it and not reporting with examples?

That particular example (Malcolm's missing children) was reported some time ago, though it hasn't been reported. You are of course free to report other examples of missing/incorrect characters.

On another note, it's a shame that the game can't model one ruler's nominal suzerainty over another of the same tier; in this specific case, the king of England over the king of Scotland. Doubtless there are other examples, though.

 

[yezhanquan]

It appears we (the reporting community) will have to get back to work before Christmas even. ^^

A problem with adding historical wars are the dates. Most wars have no known precise start date, only years and possibly month, same with the Crusades, and I think PI want to be precise if they can.

Other than that, why are we discussion it and not reporting with examples?

What you said is very true. I guess I would rather PI take an educated stab in the dark, instead of ignoring the thing altogether.

 

[RustyTurban]

Malcolm III's children are probably missing so that the correct historical ones inherit, in reality he choose to ignore the sons of his previous wife in favour of those by his second wife.

Its weird. I think there is an argument that Scotland could start Elective BUT the Earls didn't really get an official vote historically.

[edit] There is also an argument that Scotland could start with Seniority too

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Malcolm III's children are probably missing so that the correct historical ones inherit, in reality he choose to ignore the sons of his previous wife in favour of those by his second wife.

Your argument doesn't hold as the missing children are from his second marriage. His chosen heir was Edward, his eldest son from his second marriage, who died alongside him in battle. Either way, there's no reason to purposefully miss out historical characters simply because you want an historical succession -- by that logic, Robert Curthose should either be missing or not allowed to succeed.

As for Scotland's succession, it probably ought to be elective to begin with and then primogeniture later on, with the Norman-taught Dunkelds.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Your argument doesn't hold as the missing children are from his second marriage. His chosen heir was Edward, his eldest son from his second marriage, who died alongside him in battle. Either way, there's no reason to purposefully miss out historical characters simply because you want an historical succession -- by that logic, Robert Curthose should either be missing or not allowed to succeed.

Not really a good comparison, since Robert Curthose was without a doubt the duke of Normandy, so he should be in the game.

 

[Thure]

Not really a good comparison, since Robert Curthose was without a doubt the duke of Normandy, so he should be in the game.

I know why I want, that you should select your heirr under Gavelkind... That would make this succesion possible.