-
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.
My suggestions:
Svealands city change to Birka
Split up scandinavia in one province countries (if not the tags run out, then just the largest)
Of the one province countries svearna (Svealand) should be the strongest, because they later form the kingdom of sweden.
Norway must be treeted better then in the original scenarios.
In this time Norway is a much richer country, scandinavians richest.
The known provinces for all scandinavian countries reduces to just scandinavia.
The Lapps shouldnt have their own kingdom.
Svealands city change to Birka
Split up scandinavia in one province countries (if not the tags run out, then just the largest)
Of the one province countries svearna (Svealand) should be the strongest, because they later form the kingdom of sweden.
Norway must be treeted better then in the original scenarios.
In this time Norway is a much richer country, scandinavians richest.
The known provinces for all scandinavian countries reduces to just scandinavia.
The Lapps shouldnt have their own kingdom.
Well, Norway (as a geographic expression) experienced enormous population growth in the coastal regions from around 700 and up to 1349.
This had two very important effects:
1) It lead to the settling of inland Norway. Formerly sparsely inhabited (if at all) areas were settled, new small kingdoms sprung up in areas in Østlandet.
2) From the late 700s, it also lead to the Viking raids, and then finally, the settlements in Yorkshire, Scotland and particularly Ireland and the Isles (Orkneys, Faroes etc.).
Being seafarers, the Norsemen also acquired quite high-tech equipment from the Franks and from the Roman Empire. Archeological digs from the Merovingian period have uncovered Roman swords and equipment with typical Norse traits.
Of course, the longship was superior to any vessel since the Roman fleet, and its flexibility and durability helped the Vikings sail vast distances.
The earliest findings of something remotely like cities (areas of trade and craftmanship) are around Tunsberg, Skiringssal and Kaupang in Østlandet. I'm sure there are several others along the coast, but in 751... perhaps just Tunsberg.
Hope this somewhat helps. Of course, I could supply the royal bloodlines, but Havard's already done that, right?
This had two very important effects:
1) It lead to the settling of inland Norway. Formerly sparsely inhabited (if at all) areas were settled, new small kingdoms sprung up in areas in Østlandet.
2) From the late 700s, it also lead to the Viking raids, and then finally, the settlements in Yorkshire, Scotland and particularly Ireland and the Isles (Orkneys, Faroes etc.).
Being seafarers, the Norsemen also acquired quite high-tech equipment from the Franks and from the Roman Empire. Archeological digs from the Merovingian period have uncovered Roman swords and equipment with typical Norse traits.
Of course, the longship was superior to any vessel since the Roman fleet, and its flexibility and durability helped the Vikings sail vast distances.
The earliest findings of something remotely like cities (areas of trade and craftmanship) are around Tunsberg, Skiringssal and Kaupang in Østlandet. I'm sure there are several others along the coast, but in 751... perhaps just Tunsberg.
Hope this somewhat helps. Of course, I could supply the royal bloodlines, but Havard's already done that, right?
I agree that most of Scandinavia should probably be split up in 1 province kingdoms. You can (and probably should) add some unification events (a la The Netherlands) to make sure they unite later on (at least Denmark and Norway). Sweden wasn't really united before the 13th century.
One exception to this one province thing should be a Danish kingdom in Jylland/Holstein. Perhaps even add a fort to Holstein to simulate the "Danevirke", a defense line made to protect the Kingdom and Hedeby from Charlemagne and other attacks from the south.
One exception to this one province thing should be a Danish kingdom in Jylland/Holstein. Perhaps even add a fort to Holstein to simulate the "Danevirke", a defense line made to protect the Kingdom and Hedeby from Charlemagne and other attacks from the south.
Pagans
Several of the provinces need to have their religion changed to pagan as well. The finns/lapps didn't believe in the Norse pantheon. The Lapp kingdom should be removed anyway.
Several of the provinces need to have their religion changed to pagan as well. The finns/lapps didn't believe in the Norse pantheon. The Lapp kingdom should be removed anyway.
Sweden was united under Olof Skötkonung allready 994, but it doesnt really worked as a kingdom. Unite Sweden under Skötkonung, but have revolters.
Depends on what you mean by Sweden. He didn't have control over more than Svealand really, perhaps some in Götaland and no control over the rest.
Ahem... reading Jan Guillou's trilogy about Arn Magnusson, I get the impression that Västgötaland (near Norway) and Östgötaland were independent kingdoms, and that Svealand to the north was the bigger og the three kingdoms.
It seems the Folkunga dynasty was from Västgötaland. Should alternative royal dynasties also be "made up"?
It seems the Folkunga dynasty was from Västgötaland. Should alternative royal dynasties also be "made up"?
Originally posted by Norgesvenn
Ahem... reading Jan Guillou's trilogy about Arn Magnusson, I get the impression that Västgötaland (near Norway) and Östgötaland were independent kingdoms, and that Svealand to the north was the bigger og the three kingdoms.
It seems the Folkunga dynasty was from Västgötaland. Should alternative royal dynasties also be "made up"?
You shouldn't count too much on Guillou when it come to historic details though
I seem to use unreliable sources quite often. So we shouldn't include any "Jesus survived and became the founder of the Merovingian bloodline" events based on "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" by Baigent and Lincoln either then? I noticed that already in 1151, Guillou claims that Sverre was king of Norway...
In 751 there are no towns in Sweden nor in Norway and Hedeby was in its infancy. More problematic there is no Sweden... Kaupang and Birka were both founded in late 700´s.
First Swedish king we really know anything about is Erik Segersäll in the late 900´s except for some Kings mentioned in Vita Ansgarii who are known by name only.
For this scenarion compromises need to be made - so I´d make Västergötländ and Småland into the "Kingdom of the Götar", Svealand, Bergslagen and Gästrikland into the "Kingdom of the Svear", Gotland into "Republic of Gotland" and Jämtland into "Republic of Jämtland". Put a CoT in Gotland and tweak the base taxes so that the Gotlanders are the richest (but low on manpower), Svear and Götar at parity (high manpower and CBs on each other) and Jämtland the poorest. All other areas of modern day Sweden should be inhabited by "natives" with Saami culture. Skåne could be made into a Kingdom as well I guess.
Before c. 1000 very liitle is known about "Swedish" history but there could be Events for "The Creation of Sweden", "Foundation of Birka", "Birka burned, Sigtuna founded", "The Arrival of Ansgar" and "The Christening of Olof Skötkonung". Then we´ll get into the troublesome Middle Ages (I still don´t understand how Paradox will handle them in CK)...
Cheers,
Vandelay
First Swedish king we really know anything about is Erik Segersäll in the late 900´s except for some Kings mentioned in Vita Ansgarii who are known by name only.
For this scenarion compromises need to be made - so I´d make Västergötländ and Småland into the "Kingdom of the Götar", Svealand, Bergslagen and Gästrikland into the "Kingdom of the Svear", Gotland into "Republic of Gotland" and Jämtland into "Republic of Jämtland". Put a CoT in Gotland and tweak the base taxes so that the Gotlanders are the richest (but low on manpower), Svear and Götar at parity (high manpower and CBs on each other) and Jämtland the poorest. All other areas of modern day Sweden should be inhabited by "natives" with Saami culture. Skåne could be made into a Kingdom as well I guess.
Before c. 1000 very liitle is known about "Swedish" history but there could be Events for "The Creation of Sweden", "Foundation of Birka", "Birka burned, Sigtuna founded", "The Arrival of Ansgar" and "The Christening of Olof Skötkonung". Then we´ll get into the troublesome Middle Ages (I still don´t understand how Paradox will handle them in CK)...
Cheers,
Vandelay
Last edited:
Originally posted by Norgesvenn
I'd rather see not...
Well - you see my point then?
I noticed that already in 1151, Guillou claims that Sverre was king of Norway...
Both Norway and Sweden will have a rough ride in the early medieval period. Christian faith should not be hard-coded for the provinces, but perhaps come through events?
The civil wars of Norway'll be nasty... *shudder*
Should one be able to choose between Magnus Erlingsson and Sverre Sigurdsson through events, perhaps?
One thing, though... the EU II map fits rather poorly with the Frankish period when it comes to political entities etc. Like Bohuslen... it used to be perhaps the richest area of Norway.
Right... so no Merovingian resurrection events after the capture of the Temple of Jerusalem, then?
The civil wars of Norway'll be nasty... *shudder*
Should one be able to choose between Magnus Erlingsson and Sverre Sigurdsson through events, perhaps?
One thing, though... the EU II map fits rather poorly with the Frankish period when it comes to political entities etc. Like Bohuslen... it used to be perhaps the richest area of Norway.
Right... so no Merovingian resurrection events after the capture of the Temple of Jerusalem, then?
Read "Focaults Pendulum" and see what happens to people who dwell on the Templars...
/Vandelay
Yes it was dark path in our history, but still is Birka the most resonable name of the city
Yes I remember that later, but Olof was the first christian king.
The reason because the "svearna" beat was because they were richer. so that is something to count in.
That fits perfectly for CK because Ck is more about nobilty famalies then nation.
Anyone know names for other parts of scandinavia. It is really hard to find.
The question of leaders:
Well, there were a nice set of leaders in Scandinavia those days. Kings were by nature also military leaders.
The most prominent Norwegian military leaders should probably be the kings Sigurd Jorsalfar, Harald Hårdråde and Sverre Sigurdsson. Sverre could be a sort of Napoleon light when it comes to stats, as he spent his entire reign at war with different factions of Norwegian nobility and one might say he won against forces far superior to his own.
I suggest a 6/5/5. It has been hinted by historians that Sverre might have received military training in foreign lands. His tactics were rather different from the ones used in Scandinavia.
Harald Hårdråde 5/4/5. Formerly in the service of the Byzantine emperor as a mercenary commander, his military prowess left little to be desired...
Sigurd Jorsalfar. Although the Snorre saga probably downright lies about him fighting "blåmenn" (Moors) on his way to Jerusalem, I believe him to be a significant military commander.
The Dane Canute would also be way up in the 5s and 6s.
Well, there were a nice set of leaders in Scandinavia those days. Kings were by nature also military leaders.
The most prominent Norwegian military leaders should probably be the kings Sigurd Jorsalfar, Harald Hårdråde and Sverre Sigurdsson. Sverre could be a sort of Napoleon light when it comes to stats, as he spent his entire reign at war with different factions of Norwegian nobility and one might say he won against forces far superior to his own.
I suggest a 6/5/5. It has been hinted by historians that Sverre might have received military training in foreign lands. His tactics were rather different from the ones used in Scandinavia.
Harald Hårdråde 5/4/5. Formerly in the service of the Byzantine emperor as a mercenary commander, his military prowess left little to be desired...
Sigurd Jorsalfar. Although the Snorre saga probably downright lies about him fighting "blåmenn" (Moors) on his way to Jerusalem, I believe him to be a significant military commander.
The Dane Canute would also be way up in the 5s and 6s.
Hey Norgesvenn, how about Harald Hårfager??? - I have a (probably fake) family tree that proves I´m descended from him so I think he should be a 6/6/6 just like me!
About kinglists is it possible to create lists for all the petty kingdoms of Norway and Sweden prior to the 10th century??? I know that in the case of Sweden it is not.
One solution would be to choose the legendary (and false) kings of Sweden that were so popular in Sweden (the reason our current king is the 16th of his name it´s more like the 8th or something).
Cheers,
Vandelay
About kinglists is it possible to create lists for all the petty kingdoms of Norway and Sweden prior to the 10th century??? I know that in the case of Sweden it is not.
One solution would be to choose the legendary (and false) kings of Sweden that were so popular in Sweden (the reason our current king is the 16th of his name it´s more like the 8th or something).
Cheers,
Vandelay
I was thinking about him too, Vandelay. He must've been half-decent for uniting the kingdom. I'm very interested in seeing how one might translate siege bonuses into some other concept here.
Was really sieging something that happened in 751? I'm no military nut *cancels "Soldier of Fortune" subscription*, I dunno.
Whether "real" or "mythical", a king is sure better than some "Regency" monarch.
He must've been half-decent for uniting the kingdom. I'm very interested in seeing how one might translate siege bonuses into some other concept here. Was really sieging something that happened in 751? I'm no military nut *cancels "Soldier of Fortune" subscription*, I dunno.
Whether "real" or "mythical", a king is sure better than some "Regency" monarch.
Yes, there were sieges but the Vikings at least don´t seem to have utilized siege engines (besides the ram). My guess is that the shock value will be symbolic for our leaders since I guess the tech levels won´t allow a shock phase???
I agree, but would like to avoid completely made up monarchs.
Cheers,
Vandelay
