Johan posting in the CK forum?
Excellent! It msut mean that focus is shifting towards this place!
-
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.
Johan posting in the CK forum?
Excellent! It msut mean that focus is shifting towards this place!
Originally posted by The camel
go find some of their goverment sites, im sure its mentioned that estonia is a baltic country
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ee-ncros.html
Heres part of the story, its part of "building image" scandinavia is forward, while baltic is backwards. Thus estonia is scandinavian..
You also say it was historical, the Danish kings (incl. a certain Valdemar
) conquered several parts of the baltic, found our flag there and founded Tallin and several border forts against the Russians. Later we came back on a crusade to christen whomever survived our first visit
In CK terms several Baltic provinces, northern Germany as far down as Hamburg and parts of Rügen in Germany Would be Danish provinces.
V
Sorry I haven’t been on for a long time so are the final provinces set or?
Cause I got some Info!
Provinces Mainland Norway
The Oslo fjord and the eastern south coast
Oslo Sysle
City: Oslo
Terrain: Flatland
Tunsberg Sysle
City: Tunsberg
Terrain: Flatland
Skien Sysle
City: Skien
Terrain: Flatland
Borgar sysle
City: Borg, Later on Renamed to Sarpsborg
Terrain: Flatland
Ranrike
City: Konghelle
Terrain: Flatland
Elvesysle
City: don’t know
Terrain: Flatland
The inner east land
Hamarhus
City: Hamar, did hamar exist this early?
Terrain; Varriable Between Flatland and Mountains
Gudbrandsdalen
City: Don’t know
Terrain; Valley
Østerdalen
City: Don’t know
Terrain: Valley
The West and southwestern coast
Rogaland
City: Stavanger, Did this city exist in 1060?
Terrain: Flatland by the coast, and a mountainous inland
Bergenhus (need another name for this province anyone?)
City: Kaupang, Bergen after 1070
Terrain: Fjords and mountainous
Møre
City: don’t know
Terrain: mountainous, fjords, islands
Central Norway and Northern
Nidaros or Trøndelag
City: Nidaros or Tronheim
Terrain: Flatland and hills, a little mountainous
Helgeland
City: don’t know
Terrain; Valleys, mountainous and fjords
Jæmtland
City: Frøsøn, did this city exist in 1060
Terrain: hills and Flatland
Lofoten
City: Vågan
Terrain: Mountainous
Finmark og Troms
City: Vardø, did this city exist at this time
Terrain: Mountainous and flatland
this gives 17 provinces for the mainland of norway
Cause I got some Info!
Provinces Mainland Norway
The Oslo fjord and the eastern south coast
Oslo Sysle
City: Oslo
Terrain: Flatland
Tunsberg Sysle
City: Tunsberg
Terrain: Flatland
Skien Sysle
City: Skien
Terrain: Flatland
Borgar sysle
City: Borg, Later on Renamed to Sarpsborg
Terrain: Flatland
Ranrike
City: Konghelle
Terrain: Flatland
Elvesysle
City: don’t know
Terrain: Flatland
The inner east land
Hamarhus
City: Hamar, did hamar exist this early?
Terrain; Varriable Between Flatland and Mountains
Gudbrandsdalen
City: Don’t know
Terrain; Valley
Østerdalen
City: Don’t know
Terrain: Valley
The West and southwestern coast
Rogaland
City: Stavanger, Did this city exist in 1060?
Terrain: Flatland by the coast, and a mountainous inland
Bergenhus (need another name for this province anyone?)
City: Kaupang, Bergen after 1070
Terrain: Fjords and mountainous
Møre
City: don’t know
Terrain: mountainous, fjords, islands
Central Norway and Northern
Nidaros or Trøndelag
City: Nidaros or Tronheim
Terrain: Flatland and hills, a little mountainous
Helgeland
City: don’t know
Terrain; Valleys, mountainous and fjords
Jæmtland
City: Frøsøn, did this city exist in 1060
Terrain: hills and Flatland
Lofoten
City: Vågan
Terrain: Mountainous
Finmark og Troms
City: Vardø, did this city exist at this time
Terrain: Mountainous and flatland
this gives 17 provinces for the mainland of norway
Well, I think the map is pretty much finalized, and they are working on other things right now.
Galleblære
Colonel
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Uh?
Posts: 1012
Although I dont have vast knowledge of the subject, Norway should indeed be more powerful than what was possible in EU2, compared to its scandinavian cousins.
IE, after 1066-1300ish, in what way was Denmark so much more powerful than Norway? Norway raided and burned danish villages during wars, and they even had an invasion force ready that was stopped due to the act of a certain bishop.
And, Sweden wasn't the united entity it became later, or so I understand.
IE, Norway was at its peak of power around 1250ish, under Håkon Håkonssen
Rading and burning Villages dosent mean that u are powerfull i am quite into history but i can´t remember one singel norwegian invasion on Danish main land but hey correct me if im wrong......
well in 1219 Valdemar the Great assembled the greatest Fleet in northern eupean history and he was not stopped by some bishop
oh well gotta go
Colonel
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Uh?
Posts: 1012
Although I dont have vast knowledge of the subject, Norway should indeed be more powerful than what was possible in EU2, compared to its scandinavian cousins.
IE, after 1066-1300ish, in what way was Denmark so much more powerful than Norway? Norway raided and burned danish villages during wars, and they even had an invasion force ready that was stopped due to the act of a certain bishop.
And, Sweden wasn't the united entity it became later, or so I understand.
IE, Norway was at its peak of power around 1250ish, under Håkon Håkonssen
Rading and burning Villages dosent mean that u are powerfull i am quite into history but i can´t remember one singel norwegian invasion on Danish main land but hey correct me if im wrong......
well in 1219 Valdemar the Great assembled the greatest Fleet in northern eupean history and he was not stopped by some bishop
oh well gotta go
Comments to HITO:
Let's look at when the game starts before saying who is the most powerfull.
In 1066, it was Norway. No argue about that one, even though defeated at Stamford Bridge, it was only four years since the Battle of Niså where the Danes where utterly defeated by Norwegians. The only reason Harald gave up his claim on Denmark and let Svein have the devastated nation for himself was that Harald had bigger goals (pherhaps a little too big), England. In the period of 1035 to 1130, pherhaps just like the period 1217 to 1319 though to a greater extend, Norway was pherhaps the greatest power in Scandinavia, specially in this early period. Proofs of it was that Norway was the only power in Scandinavia that took new lands in the British Isles and where a king personally went for crusade to the holyland. In 1123, King Sigurd invaded Småland, force converting the heathen Smålanders, on his way over there he punished the Danes for not joining him by raiding all of Skåne without the Danish king having guts to even complain about it (just like Magnus Barefoot had raided Halland). Denmark was not significant until the Valdemars showed up, and with the defeats at Lena and Gestilren and finally the death of Valdemar II in 1241, the Danes would no longer be the leading power of Scandinavia. You might say, how did Denmark get to control all of Scandinavia in the Kalmar Union then? I would say luck with marriages and sudden deaths of Norwegian kings (unless Margrete killed her husband and son), if Håkon VI had lived longer and then Olav IV a little longer and with the line surviving, the Kalmar Union would infact have been run from Oslo and not København.
Let's look at when the game starts before saying who is the most powerfull.
In 1066, it was Norway. No argue about that one, even though defeated at Stamford Bridge, it was only four years since the Battle of Niså where the Danes where utterly defeated by Norwegians. The only reason Harald gave up his claim on Denmark and let Svein have the devastated nation for himself was that Harald had bigger goals (pherhaps a little too big), England. In the period of 1035 to 1130, pherhaps just like the period 1217 to 1319 though to a greater extend, Norway was pherhaps the greatest power in Scandinavia, specially in this early period. Proofs of it was that Norway was the only power in Scandinavia that took new lands in the British Isles and where a king personally went for crusade to the holyland. In 1123, King Sigurd invaded Småland, force converting the heathen Smålanders, on his way over there he punished the Danes for not joining him by raiding all of Skåne without the Danish king having guts to even complain about it (just like Magnus Barefoot had raided Halland). Denmark was not significant until the Valdemars showed up, and with the defeats at Lena and Gestilren and finally the death of Valdemar II in 1241, the Danes would no longer be the leading power of Scandinavia. You might say, how did Denmark get to control all of Scandinavia in the Kalmar Union then? I would say luck with marriages and sudden deaths of Norwegian kings (unless Margrete killed her husband and son), if Håkon VI had lived longer and then Olav IV a little longer and with the line surviving, the Kalmar Union would infact have been run from Oslo and not København.
Quote:
"Let's look at when the game starts before saying who is the most powerfull.
In 1066, it was Norway. No argue about that one, even though defeated at Stamford Bridge, it was only four years since the Battle of Niså where the Danes where utterly defeated by Norwegians. The only reason Harald gave up his claim on Denmark and let Svein have the devastated nation for himself was that Harald had bigger goals (pherhaps a little too big), England. In the period of 1035 to 1130, pherhaps just like the period 1217 to 1319 though to a greater extend, Norway was pherhaps the greatest power in Scandinavia."
Granted that Norway in 1066 is militarily stronger than Denmark (Svein Estridsen was a bad commander), but Denmark did have greatpower potential before the Valdemars. Cnut the Holy (Knud den Hellige) assembled a great fleet and planned to reconquer England with the help of his father in-law the duke of flandern (i think?!). But Cnut failed to sail to England and was murdered in the church of st. Albans in Odense.
To say that if Magretes husband Håkan had lived the Kalmar Union would have been ruled from Oslo and not Copenhagen is nonsens. Firstly the Kalmar Union had its name from the Town (and castle) of Kalmar from wich Magrete ruled from and it is situated in Sweden and not Denmark. Secondly the reson that Copenhagen would be the capital and not Oslo is Copenhagens economical importans. Copenhagen had the large Herringmarkeds and later Elsinore (or Krogen) controlled the sound due under Magretes adoptive son Erik (who was a kinda moron). Oslo didn´t have any real economic or strategic importans at this moment in time.
Quote:
"how did Denmark get to control all of Scandinavia in the Kalmar Union then? I would say luck with marriages and sudden deaths of Norwegian kings (unless Margrete killed her husband and son), if Håkon VI had lived longer and then Olav IV a little longer and with the line surviving, the Kalmar Union would infact have been run from Oslo and not København".
Luck is perhaps the wrong word, a better might be circumstances. tired from constant figthing the swedes elected Olav a their future king, and becaus of Olavs future power the danes elected him as future king, and Magrete as his Ward dispite that Magrete had an older sister who also had a male child (the later king Erik VII).
The "theory" that Margarete killed her husband and son is something some idiotic amature historians have come up with. Olav had been given a (for that time) thorough education in diplomacy and warfare and acted before his death on many occasions in close conjunction with his mother on important affairs of the state. She worked very hard to get him confirmed as future king of all three countries, so to claim that she would murder him to replace him with his dimwith cousin is ludicris!
Quote:
"Denmark was not significant until the Valdemars showed up, and with the defeats at Lena and Gestilren and finally the death of Valdemar II in 1241, the Danes would no longer be the leading power of Scandinavia".
Denmark-Norway continued to be the leading power in Scandinavia until Christian 4.s defeat in the thirty years war in the beginning of the 17th century after wich Sweden emergeged as the dominant power who would pummel Denmark-Norway thoroughly and repeatedly.
"Let's look at when the game starts before saying who is the most powerfull.
In 1066, it was Norway. No argue about that one, even though defeated at Stamford Bridge, it was only four years since the Battle of Niså where the Danes where utterly defeated by Norwegians. The only reason Harald gave up his claim on Denmark and let Svein have the devastated nation for himself was that Harald had bigger goals (pherhaps a little too big), England. In the period of 1035 to 1130, pherhaps just like the period 1217 to 1319 though to a greater extend, Norway was pherhaps the greatest power in Scandinavia."
Granted that Norway in 1066 is militarily stronger than Denmark (Svein Estridsen was a bad commander), but Denmark did have greatpower potential before the Valdemars. Cnut the Holy (Knud den Hellige) assembled a great fleet and planned to reconquer England with the help of his father in-law the duke of flandern (i think?!). But Cnut failed to sail to England and was murdered in the church of st. Albans in Odense.
To say that if Magretes husband Håkan had lived the Kalmar Union would have been ruled from Oslo and not Copenhagen is nonsens. Firstly the Kalmar Union had its name from the Town (and castle) of Kalmar from wich Magrete ruled from and it is situated in Sweden and not Denmark. Secondly the reson that Copenhagen would be the capital and not Oslo is Copenhagens economical importans. Copenhagen had the large Herringmarkeds and later Elsinore (or Krogen) controlled the sound due under Magretes adoptive son Erik (who was a kinda moron). Oslo didn´t have any real economic or strategic importans at this moment in time.
Quote:
"how did Denmark get to control all of Scandinavia in the Kalmar Union then? I would say luck with marriages and sudden deaths of Norwegian kings (unless Margrete killed her husband and son), if Håkon VI had lived longer and then Olav IV a little longer and with the line surviving, the Kalmar Union would infact have been run from Oslo and not København".
Luck is perhaps the wrong word, a better might be circumstances. tired from constant figthing the swedes elected Olav a their future king, and becaus of Olavs future power the danes elected him as future king, and Magrete as his Ward dispite that Magrete had an older sister who also had a male child (the later king Erik VII).
The "theory" that Margarete killed her husband and son is something some idiotic amature historians have come up with. Olav had been given a (for that time) thorough education in diplomacy and warfare and acted before his death on many occasions in close conjunction with his mother on important affairs of the state. She worked very hard to get him confirmed as future king of all three countries, so to claim that she would murder him to replace him with his dimwith cousin is ludicris!
Quote:
"Denmark was not significant until the Valdemars showed up, and with the defeats at Lena and Gestilren and finally the death of Valdemar II in 1241, the Danes would no longer be the leading power of Scandinavia".
Denmark-Norway continued to be the leading power in Scandinavia until Christian 4.s defeat in the thirty years war in the beginning of the 17th century after wich Sweden emergeged as the dominant power who would pummel Denmark-Norway thoroughly and repeatedly.
Completely agree with the above. Good post.
That the Norwegians captured a few periferal Scottish islands is no proof that Norway was the strongest nation in Scandinavia. The British Isles were not at all in the sphere of interest of the Swedes (who during this time conquered all of Finland as well as other areas around the Baltic) while the Danes made some serious attempts of reconquering England. It is quite hard to tell which of the three were the strongest, I'd say make them about equal for the most interesting starting setup.
Talking about a kingdom of Sweden in 1066 is perhaps overdoing it a bit...in 1066 there are nearly no recognizable swedish nobility factions, only family units, in contrast to Norway and especially Denmark, and we have to wait until the 12th century to see any real centralizing power in that fragmented nation. This can be see by the way norwegian and danish lords frequently can start exercising royal power in the late 11th century in lands clearly regarded as swedish in the 10th and early 11th century, like Småland and Jemtland(still under Uppsala in church matters), without this raising any problems with the swedish 'royal' parties.
When it comes to ruling Scandinavia, Denmark in the 11th century is clearly the powerhouse. In addition to having the largest population and best farmland, Denmark has a valid claim to most of western sweden and southeastern Norway; indeed we have to go to the 12th century before Viken is entirely regarded as Norwegian.
Even though Denmark is the strongest if unified, the problem in the north is that noone really is predominant until the days of Margrete. The 12th and 13th century see decentralizing noble conflicts in Denmark and especially Norway, and the balance of power constantly shifting between different factions that frequently have _very_ little to do with nationality(at best a vague concept at this time). With the norwegian nobility having been mostly exterminated and replaced after Sverres ascension, and both danish and swedish internal matters after the 1250s declining into internal conflict, Norway appears predominant, followed by Sweden after the exile of Birger Magnusson and the union of crowns and so on and so on.
EF
When it comes to ruling Scandinavia, Denmark in the 11th century is clearly the powerhouse. In addition to having the largest population and best farmland, Denmark has a valid claim to most of western sweden and southeastern Norway; indeed we have to go to the 12th century before Viken is entirely regarded as Norwegian.
Even though Denmark is the strongest if unified, the problem in the north is that noone really is predominant until the days of Margrete. The 12th and 13th century see decentralizing noble conflicts in Denmark and especially Norway, and the balance of power constantly shifting between different factions that frequently have _very_ little to do with nationality(at best a vague concept at this time). With the norwegian nobility having been mostly exterminated and replaced after Sverres ascension, and both danish and swedish internal matters after the 1250s declining into internal conflict, Norway appears predominant, followed by Sweden after the exile of Birger Magnusson and the union of crowns and so on and so on.
EF
Well, if there is about 2 to 3 times as many provinces, every province could(should?) be split in 2 or 3 new ones ... simple logics.
My suggestions for provinces will only be for the 2 nations not actually part of the Scandinavian peninsula (Denmark and Finland) (and NO, no matter how much the Finns and the Danes whine, they are NOT really part of Scandinavia).
Finland is pretty easy. That area has too many provinces as it is in EUII and therefore keeping Finland as is will probably be better than dividing it up even further. Finland was poor. Adding more provinces will make it hard to keep it as poor as it was. Perhaps the region around Helsinki can be divided into 2, but then that's it.
Apart from being poor, Finland was also sparsely populated and hardly fortified. Keeping the number of provinces to a minimum will illustrate this the best.
Denmark, on the other hand, was the richest of these nations. She gained much wealth from Baltic trade and the herring market in Skåne (where fish from all over the Baltic and Skagerak was sold).
Denmark has 4 provinces in EUII, but should certainly have more in CK.
IIRC Gotland was not in Danish possession in 1066. Still I'll mention it here. It was a small island with not much wealth. It's importance for Denmark was more as a naval station in the Baltic than anything else. Also when it changed hands it was always a one-shot deal. I suggest that keeping it a one-province island is best for illustrating these things.
Skåne is tricky. In the first war Denmark lost to Sweden, they lost Halland and Blekinge (and adding those 2 as provinces has been suggested). However they ARE very small (if you look at the Skåne province in EUII, it is the Northern and Eastern little tips of the province that represents those areas), and might not be the best way of splitting up Skåne. I suggest dividing Skåne in 3 (or 2). The RICH area around Malmø (IIRC that is where the Herring Market was), and northern and eastern provinces, both with much less taxes (and grain producing instead of fish as Malmø should be). - The 2 grain provinces could be merged into one, but since much grain was obtained here, perhaps 2 is best.
Sjæland needs to be 3 provinces as well. Obviously Fyn needs to be seperated (also in order to illustrate the importance of a navy in the Danish waters). Though many might feel that Copehagen pretty much needs to be a province in itself because of the wealth gathered here and the importance of that city in intself, I'd prefer to keep Copenhagen as part of Sjæland, but instead release the islands Lolland and Falster as a province. These islands were not THAT important, but they were constantly raided by the Hansa and other cities in Northern Germany. For the sake of events these islands should be kept seperate. Also, again, it helps to illustrate how important a navy was if you wanted to move around in Denmark.
Jylland. 3 provinces. Nordjylland, Midtjylland, and Sønderjylland (North, Middle, South). Jylland both served as a producer of grain and of fish and if the economy system is as in EUII more provinces are needed to show this. Also when the capitol as moved to Copenhagen Jylland became Denmarks buffer province. The kings would sit out a war in Copenhagen, while the enemy was stuck in Jylland freezing to death (along with the farmers there).
Dividing Jylland into 3 will help illustrate the strategic value of Jylland for Denmark.
Finally Bornholm needs to be released from Eastern Pommerania. Bornholm as always belonged to Denmark (except for short occupations by Sweden and the Sovjets), and it's value as a naval base at the entry of the Baltic Sea is not unimportant. It is NOT a rich province - but it's there!
EDIT: I should add that I have not read any of the previous posts (except the first 2 or so), so if any of my suggestion has been made before, I am not trying to take undue credit. These are just my suggestions - if made before I just agree! - One has to be careful in these fora
My suggestions for provinces will only be for the 2 nations not actually part of the Scandinavian peninsula (Denmark and Finland) (and NO, no matter how much the Finns and the Danes whine, they are NOT really part of Scandinavia).
Finland is pretty easy. That area has too many provinces as it is in EUII and therefore keeping Finland as is will probably be better than dividing it up even further. Finland was poor. Adding more provinces will make it hard to keep it as poor as it was. Perhaps the region around Helsinki can be divided into 2, but then that's it.
Apart from being poor, Finland was also sparsely populated and hardly fortified. Keeping the number of provinces to a minimum will illustrate this the best.
Denmark, on the other hand, was the richest of these nations. She gained much wealth from Baltic trade and the herring market in Skåne (where fish from all over the Baltic and Skagerak was sold).
Denmark has 4 provinces in EUII, but should certainly have more in CK.
IIRC Gotland was not in Danish possession in 1066. Still I'll mention it here. It was a small island with not much wealth. It's importance for Denmark was more as a naval station in the Baltic than anything else. Also when it changed hands it was always a one-shot deal. I suggest that keeping it a one-province island is best for illustrating these things.
Skåne is tricky. In the first war Denmark lost to Sweden, they lost Halland and Blekinge (and adding those 2 as provinces has been suggested). However they ARE very small (if you look at the Skåne province in EUII, it is the Northern and Eastern little tips of the province that represents those areas), and might not be the best way of splitting up Skåne. I suggest dividing Skåne in 3 (or 2). The RICH area around Malmø (IIRC that is where the Herring Market was), and northern and eastern provinces, both with much less taxes (and grain producing instead of fish as Malmø should be). - The 2 grain provinces could be merged into one, but since much grain was obtained here, perhaps 2 is best.
Sjæland needs to be 3 provinces as well. Obviously Fyn needs to be seperated (also in order to illustrate the importance of a navy in the Danish waters). Though many might feel that Copehagen pretty much needs to be a province in itself because of the wealth gathered here and the importance of that city in intself, I'd prefer to keep Copenhagen as part of Sjæland, but instead release the islands Lolland and Falster as a province. These islands were not THAT important, but they were constantly raided by the Hansa and other cities in Northern Germany. For the sake of events these islands should be kept seperate. Also, again, it helps to illustrate how important a navy was if you wanted to move around in Denmark.
Jylland. 3 provinces. Nordjylland, Midtjylland, and Sønderjylland (North, Middle, South). Jylland both served as a producer of grain and of fish and if the economy system is as in EUII more provinces are needed to show this. Also when the capitol as moved to Copenhagen Jylland became Denmarks buffer province. The kings would sit out a war in Copenhagen, while the enemy was stuck in Jylland freezing to death (along with the farmers there).
Dividing Jylland into 3 will help illustrate the strategic value of Jylland for Denmark.
Finally Bornholm needs to be released from Eastern Pommerania. Bornholm as always belonged to Denmark (except for short occupations by Sweden and the Sovjets), and it's value as a naval base at the entry of the Baltic Sea is not unimportant. It is NOT a rich province - but it's there!
EDIT: I should add that I have not read any of the previous posts (except the first 2 or so), so if any of my suggestion has been made before, I am not trying to take undue credit. These are just my suggestions - if made before I just agree! - One has to be careful in these fora
Last edited:
King Yngvar said:
Norway was on the surface a strong kingdom but had severe weaknesses which became all too visible after the great plague. The norwegian nobility was alot weaker politically, militarily, and economically than their swedish and especially danish counterparts. The Norwegian nobility consisted mostly of "lower nobility" which owed their rank and title to the king and depended on "ombud" (administrative positions) to survive. Alot of the nobles had only one or two farms After the great plague most of the norwegian nobility "sank back into the peasantry" (quote from Andreas Holmsen) because of their inability to force their tennants into accepting more economic burdens for compensating of their huge losses. Thus when the Kalmar union came about Norway had only a handfull of families which could be of any service to the king. The archbishop of Nidaros compensated to some extent for this but could not in the long run prevent norway from beeing swallowed by her neighbours, the question was just who struck first. I`d like to quote the "norwegian article" of Christian IIIs pledge to the danish nobility. "And since Norway now is depleted from wealth and power, and the inhabitants of Norway cannot by themselves afford a lord and King...... " http://www.uib.no/hi/kjelder/norges-art.htm
This was nearly 200 years after the great plague and Norway had not yet recovered while Denmark and Sweden where regaining their position as major powers. To think Norway could have been the leading power in this union is a nice dream, but nothing more than that.
Halland should be a Danish province bordering to the Norwegian Ranrike/Båhuslen province (would just love to conquer Danish Scandinavian posessions from there). Here are my suggestion of Danish provinces:
Halland
Skåne
Sjælland
Fyn
Nord-Jylland (will probably be named North-Jutland since the game is in English)
Sør-Jylland (South-Jutland, same reason as above)
Slesvig
Bornholm (don't really know if this should be one of it's own or included in Skåne)
Swedish provinces: No idea about Swedish geography.
Norwegian provinces:
Hordaland
Rygjafylke
Møre
Ranrike
Sogn
Borgarsysle
Akershus/Oslo/Viken
Vestfold
Hedmark
Vest-Agder (Vest-Agder and Aust-Agder may just be Agder)
Aust-Agder (Vest-Agder and Aust-Agder may just be Agder)
Telemark (maybe Telemark and Hadeland can be put into one province)
Hadeland (maybe Telemark and Hadeland can be put into one province)
Jæmtland
Herjedalen
Østerdalen
Trønderlag
Namdalen
Hålogaland
Lofoten (this can pherhaps be a part of Hålogaland)
Halland
Skåne
Sjælland
Fyn
Nord-Jylland (will probably be named North-Jutland since the game is in English)
Sør-Jylland (South-Jutland, same reason as above)
Slesvig
Bornholm (don't really know if this should be one of it's own or included in Skåne)
Swedish provinces: No idea about Swedish geography.
Norwegian provinces:
Hordaland
Rygjafylke
Møre
Ranrike
Sogn
Borgarsysle
Akershus/Oslo/Viken
Vestfold
Hedmark
Vest-Agder (Vest-Agder and Aust-Agder may just be Agder)
Aust-Agder (Vest-Agder and Aust-Agder may just be Agder)
Telemark (maybe Telemark and Hadeland can be put into one province)
Hadeland (maybe Telemark and Hadeland can be put into one province)
Jæmtland
Herjedalen
Østerdalen
Trønderlag
Namdalen
Hålogaland
Lofoten (this can pherhaps be a part of Hålogaland)
It was all about which kings and queen survived and which didn't. Say Margrete had been the one who died, Håkon had lived on a little longer to raise Olav.
Ranger One said:
You are aware that Holmsen is extremely outdated, aren't you? While his Marxist-Economic model is quite on spot in some circumstances, it fails short in others; for example where the 'Norwegian decline' is concerned(another is his rather patethic attempts to minimize impact Sverre's role in the civil wars from his personal ability to him being the result of economic functionality). If norwegian nobility was so weakened, why where they more generous in, for example, financially supporting the church in 1450s than in 1250s? Current historians tend to point more to a structural failure in the norwegian attitude toward the royal role; while the swedes rebelled against danish dominance, the norwegian nobility quite happily intermarried with danes and accepted land in Denmark.
Holmsens and his school's view has been the 'standard explanation' for medieval Norway in pre-University norwegian schooling for many years but even when I did my history minor(7 years back) we were adviced to read his book with a critical eye.
EF
Sikker said:
Gotland was a rich island in 1066, being a center of the Baltic trade. It was indeed not a Danish possession but a part of the Swedish ledung system, so it was at least loosely tied to the Swedish kingdom.
Styrbiorn said:
I see how that could be true. I haven't heard that it should have been 'rich' ... but is sounds reasonable. Obviously when taken over by Denmark much of that wealth would naturally have been moved to the Øresund region.
I've not studied the history of Gotland, so I'll take your word for it when you say it had great wealth earlier.
Still, it is a relatively small island that would always change hand completely when invaded ... so I still feel that only 1 province would be best here (just make it rich from trade).
King Yngvar said:
So, leading scandinavia was all about having a title?, maybe hypothetically the norwegian kings could have managed to hold a leading role for a while, but in the end Norway was doomed to be the junior partner, there was no economical or military basis for a senior role. thats my point.
Endre Fodstad said:
I am wery aware that holmsen is outdated (his book was written in 1939, and he changed alot of his ideas in another book in the 70s, i meerly used his quote because its a good description of what happened to the lower nobles after the great plague. If i am basing my opinions on any historians it would be Ole Jørgen Benedictow, his report to the Nordic historical conference in Copenhagen in 1971 explains the Norwegian nobilitys decline into the peasantry. The same report (the swedish, finnish, and danish part) gives an interesting study of the decline and then consolidation of the noble estates in those countries, i recommend it higly.
About their generosities, yes, there was still nobles left in this country, and they where quite powerful, however not wery numerous, if memory serves me right there was 4-5 families who could be compared to the high nobilty of Sweden and Denmark. These families consolidated due to the fact that the lower nobles no longer could occupy part of the royal court and thus could not play a part in "national" politics. The donations actually made many nobles into peasants, As i think i pointed out, there was not alot of difference between the lower aristocrats and farmers, many farmers had more land than many nobles even in the glory days of Norway.International Intermarriages was common, but mainly among the top level because they could not find any local families which was in their "class".
My point is, basically that in norway one had 4-5 families which could be compared to danish middle nobles. But Denmark had so called Magnate families which posessed more wealth than the noble families in Norway all together. If i am not totally mistaken the Jutland and Skjælland regions was the agricultural centers in scandinavia at the time. Norway was a declining power from 1350s and forward and did not fully recover until the 1600s , how could such a state rule over such an empire. In 1536 the only power to oppose the danes where the Archbishop of Nidaros, and we all know how that ended. The differences between the countries where just too large. Its just like the UK would have ruled the US today. However you are right that many nobles accepted danish leadership, however opposition was growing, and one can see that around 1450 there are two factions the swedish , and the danish one "class" solidarity was more important than nationality. I am not trying to promote just one explanation here, intermarriages played a part, and hypothetically a Norwegian king could have been elected union king, but in my opinion this would not last, Norway was in decline and remained so throughout the middle ages and sooner or later danish and swedish streinght would have made the king into a powerless joke.
It played the whole part.
If the center had been in Norway, decline could have been awoided. And with a strong king, the nobles could have been reduced in their power, history has shown us many times that the will of one man can make small countries into empires. All we would need would be that one man...