Small Historical Tweak Reconmendations for the Devs

[Nick B II]

say Harold godwinson of Wessex has a kid called Edward, will he be called Edward Haroldson of Wessex?, also will the three lions be addressed for pre-norman england, makes me cringe to look at it with saxon rulers.

On names, I think you've got it.

The problem is that Saxon England isn't just a historical fact in CK2. You can actually play as William of Normandy, and take the English Crown from the Saxons. This means that Saxon England has to use the same tag as Norman England (best guess is it'll be ENGL, same as CK1), and be the same country for game purposes.

Which means to have a unique Saxon CoA used only for Saxon rulers you'd have to add a feature that changes CoAs in certain circumstances, but remembers the old CoAs for certain people. I'm not sure any Paradox game has supported a flag-change quite that complicated.

Which seems like overkill if the only time it's gonna be used is once for the Saxons, and I can't think of a similar situation anywhere else.

Nick

 

[Jak9090]

the thing im most looking forward to doing is restoring england to saxon rule, maybe it can use a non tied tag before the norman invasion, similar to trincinia or trezbinond in ck1

 

[RedRooster81]

Nick, I know this is an old topic of discussion on the forums, but a COA-changing feature would work for quartering arms, if such unions are common enough. For example, Leon's arms getting added to Castile's. Or if the King of England rules France, quartering the English lions with French fleurs de lis. Just an idea. Depends on whether such a function is supported, I suppose. It is in EU3 (e.g., Spain's flag changing under Carlos III), but I don't know if it will carry over.

 

[unmerged(226921)]

On names, I think you've got it.

The problem is that Saxon England isn't just a historical fact in CK2. You can actually play as William of Normandy, and take the English Crown from the Saxons. This means that Saxon England has to use the same tag as Norman England (best guess is it'll be ENGL, same as CK1), and be the same country for game purposes.

Which means to have a unique Saxon CoA used only for Saxon rulers you'd have to add a feature that changes CoAs in certain circumstances, but remembers the old CoAs for certain people. I'm not sure any Paradox game has supported a flag-change quite that complicated.

Which seems like overkill if the only time it's gonna be used is once for the Saxons, and I can't think of a similar situation anywhere else.

Nick

Thankfully it's quite easy to add your own custom flags. If the Saxons win, you can just backup the old ENGL flag and add your Saxon one and you're good to go .

The Great

 

[RedRooster81]

I just hope that old Harold has a fair chance of winning. It would be interesting to see the Saxons keep England and see what results both in France and in England. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the three lions more a personal badge of the monarch and the Cross of St. George more representative of England? Although this could get confused with the COA of Genoa and a few others in CK, like the Duchy of Almeria.

 

[unmerged(226921)]

I just hope that old Harold has a fair chance of winning. It would be interesting to see the Saxons keep England and see what results both in France and in England. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the three lions more a personal badge of the monarch and the Cross of St. George more representative of England? Although this could get confused with the COA of Genoa and a few others in CK, like the Duchy of Almeria.

Harold should indeed have a chance at winning, though it should be a tad difficult as he does face two fairly large armies on two different sides of his kingdom. If he does win, he then should be greeted by a rebellious group of nobles who now suddenly want Edgar the Aetheling on the throne. He'll certainly be a fun game either way, though I'll take my chances as Edgar first .

The Great

 

[Nick B II]

I just hope that old Harold has a fair chance of winning. It would be interesting to see the Saxons keep England and see what results both in France and in England. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the three lions more a personal badge of the monarch and the Cross of St. George more representative of England? Although this could get confused with the COA of Genoa and a few others in CK, like the Duchy of Almeria.

The flag is the Cross of St. George.

The Arms are gules, three lions passant gardent or.

The monarch's badge is the Tudor Rose.

Figuring out which of these represents England best is a difficult question. In the flag's favor the Football Team uses it. Against it is the fact that lots of other groups have used the cross of St. George, most notably Georgia, which started using that flag while the English were still pagans.

What is not a difficult question is what the Arms for Norman England in a game like CK should be: gules, three lions passant gardent or. There is simply no other coat of arms that has been used for an English monarchy, ever. Any Saxon symbol would be made up and forced to comply with heraldic rules. For a brief time under Crowmwell the flag's argent, a cross gules served as arms, but a) that was an English Republic, b) it only lasted a decade, and c) it's well out-of-period.

Nick

 

[Jak9090]

I don't think the lions make sense if history didn't go the same way, If I remember correctly they each represent a holding of the angevins(spelling), one for normandie, one for aquitain, and one for england, I also don't think if Harold wins he should be faced with a rebellion, winning against such a large invading force would only have reaffirmed the nobles current stance at the time, that england needed a warrior, not a child, you must remember that england was more of a elective monarchy, akin to the scandanavian way of ruling, so the child really had no right to rule, other then the fact his father was king.

 

[unmerged(226921)]

I don't think the lions make sense if history didn't go the same way, If I remember correctly they each represent a holding of the angevins(spelling), one for normandie, one for aquitain, and one for england, I also don't think if Harold wins he should be faced with a rebellion, winning against such a large invading force would only have reaffirmed the nobles current stance at the time, that england needed a warrior, not a child, you must remember that england was more of a elective monarchy, akin to the scandanavian way of ruling, so the child really had no right to rule, other then the fact his father was king.

England was much more like a "Gaelic monarchy", in the sense that while it is true the nobles "elected" their Kings, it was presumed and more or less mandatory to always be a previous Kings son. Harold is the only exception to this I know of and this is for a complicated and exceptional set of reasons.

The first reason is obvious, the throne was in a tenuous position at best and needed an older, experienced warrior to defend the throne. For this reason I think Harold was more or less a "regent for life" for Edgar. By no means do I think Harold would have been able to will or even convince the nobles of England to have one of his sons or relatives succeed him. His house was universally reviled, which brings me to the next reason.

Harold and his father before him had undoubtedly schemed and bullied his way to the throne in England's darkest hours. While I'd prefer not to slander the name of a man who has long since been dead honorably in battle, he by no means is the heroic character romantic psuedo-historians make him out to be and every bit as "dubious" of character as William was.

Example, Edgar's father and presumed heir to the throne, Edward the Aetheling/the Exile was almost certainly murdered upon coming back to England. We can't truly prove who did it, but many then and now suspect that Harold and his ilk had something to do with it, a theory I most certainly believe.

I will amend what I said and instead suggest that while Edgar should a claim to the throne and maybe even a non-historical title (I'm certain many titles in Anglo-Saxon England in the earlier start date will mostly be fictional characters and they also did this for certain important figures of the Norman conquest in the original), he shouldn't always revolt, certainly not so soon after the game starts.

However; he most certainly should be Harold's heir (certainly not Harold's children) and if Harold/the player changes the succession law, a rebellion most certainly should start. One should remember that the Anglo-Saxons were a very unstable/unruly bunch when it came to matters of power.

The Great

 

[Jak9090]

Wow thanks John, one of the reasons I love these forums is from the sheer amount you can learn from lots of differing opinions of the people here.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

However; he most certainly should be Harold's heir (certainly not Harold's children) and if Harold/the player changes the succession law, a rebellion most certainly should start. One should remember that the Anglo-Saxons were a very unstable/unruly bunch when it came to matters of power.

Then again if Harold defeats both Harald and William (and maybe even kills them both) and is together with his brothers in control of 3/4 of the country would be able to do a lot of things. His children (once they matured) with Edith Leofricson (the family that controls most of the rest of the country), would most likely succeed him.

 

[RedRooster81]

Then again if Harold defeats both Harald and William (and maybe even kills them both) and is together with his brothers in control of 3/4 of the country would be able to do a lot of things. His children (once they matured) with Edith Leofricson (the family that controls most of the rest of the country), would most likely succeed him.

Good point. Who elects the new king under elective succession? The king's direct vassals.

It would be nice if, upon Harold's successful defense of England (and in similar situations), that there be a long-term relation boost, similar to what the HRE gets in EU3 for defending against an aggressor in the empire (+10 Imperial authority IIRC). Instead of "Okay, the Normans are gone, the Norwegians have left the north. Now, Harold thanks, but you're not the rightful king. Have a nice life."

 

[Raczynski]

I hope patronymics are not "obligatory" for everyone. In Poland, for example, you can hardly find any trace of them, the only one I can think of is some very archaic - unheard of otherwise - form of "-yc", you can find in "Bogurodzica" (very early Polish poem), where Jesus is referred to as "Bożyc" (roughly, "Godson"). Otherwise, there really aren't any patronymics in Polish.

That's not really true; some patronymics are used in both historical literature and contemporary chronicles; Wladyslaw Odonic (son of Odon), Mieszko Boleslawowic (son of Boleslaw the Brave), Piotr Wlostowic (a powerful nobleman). They actually come pretty handy once you enter the era when there are dozens of Piasts all named Mieszko, Boleslaw or Wladyslaw.

 

[Orinsul]

Good point. Who elects the new king under elective succession? The king's direct vassals.

It would be nice if, upon Harold's successful defense of England (and in similar situations), that there be a long-term relation boost, similar to what the HRE gets in EU3 for defending against an aggressor in the empire (+10 Imperial authority IIRC). Instead of "Okay, the Normans are gone, the Norwegians have left the north. Now, Harold thanks, but you're not the rightful king. Have a nice life."

The Godwins controlled the Witengemot, they had illegally pushed north out of their half of england and so had Godwins holding titles rightfully Leofrics so they had in modern terms, a controlling majority in both houses. If Harold won, the godwins werent going to let go of the throne, it would have been civil war or submission. But the actual of wessexs wouldnt have gotten the throne back without as serious a fight as they had in the harrying, and the Godwins were no stranger to pillaging so probably even that would have gone the same, or worse given how much they hated the Leofricssons.

But should Godwin and Leofrics names be the dynastic names? even if with the ssons but with something else there instead. As Leofric's grand-children and great-grandchilden went by Leofricsson and the same with Godwins lot. and they were the two greatest and most powerful houses at the start of the first scenario.
And if Harold is an of Wessex then thatd give him alittle bit more legitimacy then he oughtta have when it comes to you the player trying to rise up in the athelings name.

As for the CoA, the three lions is more representative of the greater period covered by the game and is more recognisable to the player. As with the Byzantines having that name as its what people know it as and France being France even though its still Franks for the first quarter of the game and etc the list is endless. Either you can have everything correct for day one and incorrect for every other day, or you can go for what almost works in every scenario even if it isnt perfect in any of them

Actually it should be Harold Godwinsson of house Godwin, which on the other hand is just unnecessary and stupid, as this is already made clear by the "Godwinsson".
As such, Paradox's solution is not perfect, but quite good, and overall probably the best solution for a game that has to generalize nomenclature somehow. Maybe they should add Harefoot, to turn the I into a II, but the rest of the discussion appear to be rather futile - at least to me.

Your dad could be called Godwin and so you would be a Godwinsson but that wouldnt make you a Godwin, so its in no way unnecessary, as theres more than one man christened Godwin but only one House Godwin. So Harold Godwinsson of Godwin would be fine, especially as by the looks of it its Harold Godwinsson as his name and then of Godwin or House Godwin or whatever on a different line. If paradox leaves it as is then its a good bet one of the first mods out will be to fix it.

 

[Rabid Bogling]

Eh? There was no bad blood between the houses of Leofric and Godwin. They were rivals in that uncertain period following Cnut's death and in the early days of Edward's reign, and arbitrarily opposed one another on the odd occasion, but come the 1060's Eadwin and Morcar were bound to Harold by marriage. They'd certainly have been far more likely to support their nephews' claim to the throne upon Harold's death than they would Edgar. Hell, Morcar owed his earldom to Harold. You think the Anglo-Danish thegns and holds wanted him? He certainly wasn't one of them, and had yet to prove himself anything more than a lackey to his brother and a pawn of Godgifu; a woman many of their number will have had dealings with in the past, given her extensive estates south of the Humber. Nah. They were given him as a compromise.

As for the exchange of lands; well I'm not sure it will have been that big a deal. The earldoms as they stood had only been in existance since Cnut's day, and were constantly being confiscated, doled out, and carved up. And as Morcar's an example of, holding an earldom doesn't necessarilly mean you've much power or property there.

 

[Subcomandante]

I noticed that the bookmark "Stamford Bridge" is on September 20th. In CKII both invading armies are already on the island at that date. But the earliest possible starting date is September 15th. Maybe no invaders (or only the Norwegians) on the 15th for the people who want to have some smoother sailing?

 

[The Kingmaker]

If an alternate Saxon English flag is desired, then the best alternative is the royal Wyvern of Wessex. Unfortunately, we don't have an exact design for this, albeit there are some pretty good modern interpretations.

I also concur with the suggestion that Harold eventually needs to get a snazzy Saxon mustache.

As for Harold's succession, since Saxon England supposedly has the elective monarchy in CK2, the Witan will be determining who gets to be King next. And that will probably depend on how you allocate your lands while playing as Harold. Assuming all of Harold's brothers and sons receive lands, it'll probably come down to whichever is the most influential at the time of Harold's death by old age (sometime in the 1080s, probably?) -- whether a son of Edith Swanneck (likely the eldest, Godwine Haroldson) with backing from his brothers and the Godwinson uncles, or a son of Edith of Mercia (likely her eldest, Harold Haroldson) with the support of the Aelfgarson uncles (Leofric's grandsons).

If for example, Harold Godwinson were to die in 1086, 20 years after Hastings, Harold Haroldson would be scarcely past 20 years old, while most of his older half-brothers like Godwine would be pushing 40.

 

[ZhugeKongming]

On names, I think you've got it.

The problem is that Saxon England isn't just a historical fact in CK2. You can actually play as William of Normandy, and take the English Crown from the Saxons. This means that Saxon England has to use the same tag as Norman England (best guess is it'll be ENGL, same as CK1), and be the same country for game purposes.

Which means to have a unique Saxon CoA used only for Saxon rulers you'd have to add a feature that changes CoAs in certain circumstances, but remembers the old CoAs for certain people. I'm not sure any Paradox game has supported a flag-change quite that complicated.

Which seems like overkill if the only time it's gonna be used is once for the Saxons, and I can't think of a similar situation anywhere else.

Nick

As usual, you're blowing things out of proportion and acting like they're far more complicated and arduous than they need to be.

England starts with the Anglo-Saxon Wyvern flag. England has a decision whereby a Norman (or perhaps just any non-Anglo Saxon) monarch gets to change the flag, using the same damn flag-changing feature that is in almost every Paradox game.

 

[RedRooster81]

As usual, you're blowing things out of proportion and acting like they're far more complicated and arduous than they need to be.

England starts with the Anglo-Saxon Wyvern flag. England has a decision whereby a Norman (or perhaps just any non-Anglo Saxon) monarch gets to change the flag, using the same damn flag-changing feature that is in almost every Paradox game.

There's a few ways to slice it, but I think you've won a golden Occam's Razor for that one.

 

[HMAS-Nameless]

As usual, you're blowing things out of proportion and acting like they're far more complicated and arduous than they need to be.

England starts with the Anglo-Saxon Wyvern flag. England has a decision whereby a Norman (or perhaps just any non-Anglo Saxon) monarch gets to change the flag, using the same damn flag-changing feature that is in almost every Paradox game.

But that will only happen if Paradox includes the flag-changing feature that is constantly being asked of lately.