-
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.
I wouldnt be too suprised if you found that Harald Hårfagre (Hairfair) was in your bloodline. Both of my parents are supposedly related to him also. I mean, half of Norway population is related to him, if not more. He had his way with women, when he was uniting the kingdom! 
Shouldn't the Scandinavian provinces that start with cities in the standard GC, but in the IFU are unoccupied or contain only colonies - Nyland, Svealand, and the like - start with natives?
EDIT: clarified.
EDIT: clarified.
Last edited:
I don´think that the province of Holstein should belong to Danmark at start of the game, at least not with a "wikingisch Culture".
I´ll explain it in detail in a (soon to come) Saxony-thread.
I´ll explain it in detail in a (soon to come) Saxony-thread.
In terms of towns it was that bad (in 750). But in the EU engine you need towns of 700+ inhabitants in order to be able to build troops and ships which the Viking Age Scandinavians had little problem doing. Manpower and base taxes should be kept low, though - raise them by Events in the 11th century (intorduction of continental agriculture techniques) and 12th/ 13th centuries (foundation of towns exploded, new mining techniques, ledung system formalized, feudal cavalry introduced).
Cheers,
Vandelay
Yes, but I mean it wasnt so bad that they couldnt biuld troops and so on.
Anyone have ideas for town names?
Leaders
Note: This is just the beginning. Think those stats are high? These were the warrior kings of their age. Most probably they'd deserve 6/6/6 the lot of them.
Anyway, I feel movement should be high, as they were good at keeping up morale (lowering attrition), and shock as well. I'm more uncertain about the fire phase, although bowmen were used extensively. It's also possible that these leaders should be "admirals" instead, as the Viking kings fought several battles at sea.
Code:
historicalmonarch = {
id = { type = 6 id = }
name = "Harald I Fairhair"
startdate = {
year = 860 (?)
}
deathdate = {
year = 933
}
DIP = 4
ADM = 6
MIL = 8
dormant = no
}
Comment: The one who united Norway
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = }
category = monarch
startdate = {
year = 875
}
deathdate = {
year = 920
}
name = "Harald I Fairhair"
rank = 0
movement = 6
fire = 4
shock = 5
dormant = no
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = }
category = monarch
startdate = {
year = 933
}
deathdate = {
year = 935
}
name = "Eirik I Bloodaxe"
rank = 0
movement = 5
fire = 4
shock = 4
dormant = no
}
Comment: A great military leader, making conquest at home and abroad.
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = }
category = monarch
startdate = {
year = 990
}
deathdate = {
year = 1000
}
name = "Olav I Tryggvasson"
rank = 0
movement = 5
fire = 5
shock = 4
dormant = no
}
Comment: Died in the battle of SvolderNote: This is just the beginning. Think those stats are high? These were the warrior kings of their age. Most probably they'd deserve 6/6/6 the lot of them.
Anyway, I feel movement should be high, as they were good at keeping up morale (lowering attrition), and shock as well. I'm more uncertain about the fire phase, although bowmen were used extensively. It's also possible that these leaders should be "admirals" instead, as the Viking kings fought several battles at sea.
Yes those stats seem very high to me. just compare them with those of Carolus Magnus (as he should becalled in my opinion and not Charlemagne):
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 5004 }
category = monarch
startdate = {
year = 765
}
deathdate = {
year = 804
}
name = "Charlemagne"
rank = 0
movement = 5
fire = 5
shock = 5
siege = 2
dormant = no
}
And he should be the leader with the highest stats in game?
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 5004 }
category = monarch
startdate = {
year = 765
}
deathdate = {
year = 804
}
name = "Charlemagne"
rank = 0
movement = 5
fire = 5
shock = 5
siege = 2
dormant = no
}
And he should be the leader with the highest stats in game?
Bah, Charlemagne is just like them fish stories, them fish getting bigger and bigger over the years. The Norwegian warrior-kings are quite the opposite, their prowness and memory being forgotten in the mists of time.
Seriously though, like Norgesvenn said, the three kings listed there were quite capable military commanders, and had in no way an easy living. To me the stats look correct in such a regard, but alas...I am patriotic..
Seriously though, like Norgesvenn said, the three kings listed there were quite capable military commanders, and had in no way an easy living. To me the stats look correct in such a regard, but alas...I am patriotic..
Not so good about Scania (Skåne). When "new" Lund was founded by Sven Tveskägg 990, it say Scania was in Swedish hegemony instead of Danish, and that Sven only got it 10 years after the foundation... hmm.
The Danes in Skåne (Scania as it probably should change name to in this scenario) should if being a kingdom of its own, at least have very good relations with Danes on Själland (Denmark).
Excavatioins have reacently found "old" Lund in Uppåkra, about a kilometers outside modern Lund. It's from BC, and was 12 times the size of Birka, and they say it seems to have been a very very rich town - at least for Scandinavian standards of that time
. It lasted until just a few years before Lund, probably it was burned down, as said in some chronicles. Once "new" Lund - the christian - city is founded in 990, it fast became the most important religions place for Northen - halfway in this scenario, it alone had more churches then the rest of Scandinavia had counted together, and by the end of it, more then Sweden had in total. The Danish king had got the right from the Pope, to govern all christian land to the north, and Lund became the place for it. This lasted, I think, til Sweden later managed to get there own rights from the Pope.Also, up to Skåne became Swedish, all Danish kings was proclaimed in Lund, as long as he/she wasn't, they couldn't rightfully claim the throne.
In other words, Skåne should change name to Scania (since that was the official name of the time). Lund could keep its name, or change it to Uppåkra. If Uppåkra is the name, it should be a happening in 990 that changes it. Also maybe a COT (not to strong though), or maybe a manufacturie should happen, since the royal mint, and the church power from there had an enormous power over the region, not to mention for Denmark itself.
Or even better "Terra Scania" (Skåneland) that includes Skåne, Blekinge, Halland and Bornholm. Basicly the area covered in EU.
Some comments if you will
First, the vikings did use siege engines, at least in one of the sieges of Paris, I cannot recall which one.
Secondly, there is good evidence that denmark was united already around 700, there is danevirke from 737 that hints at a King of Jutland at least but there are hints that Angantyr (the king Willibrord met in 716) or his descendants ruled more than Jutland. The Kanhave Kanal on samsø, Samsø is an island located in the middle of the realm of Denmark, smack between jutland and Sjælland and north of Fyn, the island is only a kilometre in breadth at the middle but widens at the north and south ends, at the smallest breadth the island is cut by a canal that would allow a fleet in the natural harbour of Stavnsfjord to rebase and intercept shipping on the opposite side of the island very quickly, effectively a fleet based here with such a canal controls the entry to the Danish straits. Hence it controls the Danish isles as well.
Somebody said that Hedeby was in its infancy in 751 AD, this is not so. Ribe was organised and laid out, probably by a King very early in the eight century but Hedeby was only one amongst many coastal markets at that stage (I suggest somebody read Anders Andrén's article on the urbanisation of the North Sea- Baltic Region in "The twelfth Viking Congress" by Bjørn Ambrosiani and...?). And BTW, Birka did not exist in 751 AD, at that stage the central site of Helgö was the trade and administration centre of that region.
In any case, the first danish king we encounter; Godfred (Charlemagne's greatest challenge, according to the Annales bertiani the franks thought and feared that he would make good his promise to loot Charlemagne's palace in Aachen, fortunately for them he was assassinated- probably on Frankish instigation), was a very able king and commander and controlled both Skåne and vestfold/viken in Norway in addition to Denmark as we know it (quite logical as water connected kingdoms in Scandinavia then). He also had a very strong realm that the Friisi and Abodrites as their taxpaying subjects, as well as the northern saxons. We can piece together a chain of even where the Danish kingdom, after the process of unification and centralisation described in Lotte Hedeager's "Iron Age kingdoms/ Danmark i Jernalderen, mellem Stamme og Stat" (it is out in English and danish) was united in the sixth or early seventh century. Meanwhile the merovingians had been weakened and this allowed the Danes to expand their hegemony and subject the Saxons, Abodrites (etc.), and Friisi, as well as the southern parts of Norway, while moving the centre of the kingdom from the eastern isles (Gudme on Fyn and/Lejre on Sjælland) to the southern part of Jutland (Ribe). This peaked with Godfred and when the Franks started expanding again under the Carolingians their interests clashed as described in the frankish Annals. The nephew of Godfred; Horik and his son; Horik II, continued to pursue the same policy towards the Franks of asserting control over the Friisi and Abodrites, though now with a combination of diplomacy and war as described by Niels Lund in the last "Historisk Tidsskrift". After them the dynasty seems to die out and with the personal nature of kingdoms then Denmark fragmented (as in the twelfth century), only with Harald Gormssøn "Bluetooth" was it reunited, probably around 934- 936 AD. he pushed the germans back that had taken the opportunity of occupying south Jutland, centralised rule, beefed up the infrastructure of the realm, and christianised it. On this foundation his son Svend Haraldssøn "Tveskæg" was able to subject the Norwegians and Swedes, and conquer England. IMO, he, not Knud who often suffered defeat in his battles with Eadmund of England, was the greatest danish military commander of that dynasty; conquering England without defeat and defeating Olav Tryggvesson of Norway (a great commander in his own right) was no mean feats.
Apart from that the Swedes might still have been pagan in the first parts of the 12th century.
The gist of this long rant is that we can safely assume that Denmark was united under one ruler in the eight century but that the realm rested on the personal relations/alliances/social network with magnates of the ruler (just as anywhere else feudalism in the legalistic sense that traditional historians have seen is nonsense until the late 14th century at the earliest as shown by Susan reynolds), if the ruler was weak (not militarily succesful so that he could not dispense rewards) or the dynasty died out the realm fragmented. But so it did in the twelfth century.
Kind regards; Palle Rasmussen, stud mag hist, writing my Master's dissertation on the development and nature of the Danish state from ~1 AD to ~1250 AD.
BTW, I can only rarely reply here, for elaborations, literature or counterarguments you will need to email me.
First, the vikings did use siege engines, at least in one of the sieges of Paris, I cannot recall which one.
Secondly, there is good evidence that denmark was united already around 700, there is danevirke from 737 that hints at a King of Jutland at least but there are hints that Angantyr (the king Willibrord met in 716) or his descendants ruled more than Jutland. The Kanhave Kanal on samsø, Samsø is an island located in the middle of the realm of Denmark, smack between jutland and Sjælland and north of Fyn, the island is only a kilometre in breadth at the middle but widens at the north and south ends, at the smallest breadth the island is cut by a canal that would allow a fleet in the natural harbour of Stavnsfjord to rebase and intercept shipping on the opposite side of the island very quickly, effectively a fleet based here with such a canal controls the entry to the Danish straits. Hence it controls the Danish isles as well.
Somebody said that Hedeby was in its infancy in 751 AD, this is not so. Ribe was organised and laid out, probably by a King very early in the eight century but Hedeby was only one amongst many coastal markets at that stage (I suggest somebody read Anders Andrén's article on the urbanisation of the North Sea- Baltic Region in "The twelfth Viking Congress" by Bjørn Ambrosiani and...?). And BTW, Birka did not exist in 751 AD, at that stage the central site of Helgö was the trade and administration centre of that region.
In any case, the first danish king we encounter; Godfred (Charlemagne's greatest challenge, according to the Annales bertiani the franks thought and feared that he would make good his promise to loot Charlemagne's palace in Aachen, fortunately for them he was assassinated- probably on Frankish instigation), was a very able king and commander and controlled both Skåne and vestfold/viken in Norway in addition to Denmark as we know it (quite logical as water connected kingdoms in Scandinavia then). He also had a very strong realm that the Friisi and Abodrites as their taxpaying subjects, as well as the northern saxons. We can piece together a chain of even where the Danish kingdom, after the process of unification and centralisation described in Lotte Hedeager's "Iron Age kingdoms/ Danmark i Jernalderen, mellem Stamme og Stat" (it is out in English and danish) was united in the sixth or early seventh century. Meanwhile the merovingians had been weakened and this allowed the Danes to expand their hegemony and subject the Saxons, Abodrites (etc.), and Friisi, as well as the southern parts of Norway, while moving the centre of the kingdom from the eastern isles (Gudme on Fyn and/Lejre on Sjælland) to the southern part of Jutland (Ribe). This peaked with Godfred and when the Franks started expanding again under the Carolingians their interests clashed as described in the frankish Annals. The nephew of Godfred; Horik and his son; Horik II, continued to pursue the same policy towards the Franks of asserting control over the Friisi and Abodrites, though now with a combination of diplomacy and war as described by Niels Lund in the last "Historisk Tidsskrift". After them the dynasty seems to die out and with the personal nature of kingdoms then Denmark fragmented (as in the twelfth century), only with Harald Gormssøn "Bluetooth" was it reunited, probably around 934- 936 AD. he pushed the germans back that had taken the opportunity of occupying south Jutland, centralised rule, beefed up the infrastructure of the realm, and christianised it. On this foundation his son Svend Haraldssøn "Tveskæg" was able to subject the Norwegians and Swedes, and conquer England. IMO, he, not Knud who often suffered defeat in his battles with Eadmund of England, was the greatest danish military commander of that dynasty; conquering England without defeat and defeating Olav Tryggvesson of Norway (a great commander in his own right) was no mean feats.
Apart from that the Swedes might still have been pagan in the first parts of the 12th century.
The gist of this long rant is that we can safely assume that Denmark was united under one ruler in the eight century but that the realm rested on the personal relations/alliances/social network with magnates of the ruler (just as anywhere else feudalism in the legalistic sense that traditional historians have seen is nonsense until the late 14th century at the earliest as shown by Susan reynolds), if the ruler was weak (not militarily succesful so that he could not dispense rewards) or the dynasty died out the realm fragmented. But so it did in the twelfth century.
Kind regards; Palle Rasmussen, stud mag hist, writing my Master's dissertation on the development and nature of the Danish state from ~1 AD to ~1250 AD.
BTW, I can only rarely reply here, for elaborations, literature or counterarguments you will need to email me.
Actually, in the Viking Age, Svitjod (Sweden) was the weakest of the three kingdoms. Norway was united in 872 (some sources say 890 or 900) by Harald Hårfagre, Denmark in 935 by Gorm den Gamle (some sagas and legends suggest that Denmark was united earlier, but there was competition, at least from Jutland before Denmark was united) and Sweden (much later than the rest) by Eirik Seiersæl/Olaf Skottkonung (not sure whom of those two). For a scenario starting around 900, Norway should be united and so should most of Denmark except pherhaps Jutland still fighting against Gorm. While Sweden should have two countries in conflict with eachother, the Svears and the Gauts.
I hate to break it to you, King Yngvar, but this project is long dead... look at the date of the post you quoted.
