I plan to crusade to Rome and convert them to true Christianity. It will be difficult, since the Roman-Catholics will be armed to the teeth, and have alot of gold.
-
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.
Having just read Sir Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe" and enjoyed it immensely, I've resolved to play as a proud Saxon dynasty struggling to reclaim the throne of England. As such, I will certainly fear the line of William the Bastard the most, and also loathe such Norman, Angevin and Poitevin (sp?) scum as he may throw at me.
Jacob
Jacob
Originally posted by Phillip V
I watched the movie instead.
Which one?
The reason why I read the book was that I recently saw the BBCs 4 hour adaptation and found it very enjoyable.
Jacob
Originally posted by tuna
But our subjects won't have good horses, sharp swords and spiffy family trees
No, but they have sheer numbers. And they farm the corn we and our horses eat. No peasants, no noblemen.
Drakken
Also, no peasant = no money (no tax, and if no peasant then where do the noblemen get the food? Or get the money?) Then how could King rule his kingdom? There may be no noblement to deal with but he would rules nothing.
"No peasant" is a bit too harsh. The swift sword of justice would keep the masses in check was all I meant. Besides the church tells them to behave---there's life everlasting awaiting if only they keep it to their fields
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
The Mongols would have no change in invading Scandinavia. Forests, forests, sparsely populated area, forests.
Much like Russia then
Hmm.. Muscowian vassalage..hmm..Still, the 'sparsely populated' can be a good shield, since Mongols came out for one thing - LOOT!
On the other hand their horrendous mobility means that they can loot across large areas, but luckily those large areas are already between Scandinavia and their home base.
Still, if they really wanted to mongolize scandinavia, they could have.. ah.. I forgat the water, Sweden and Norway are safe, Denmark and Finland could get hit, but only if they really wanted it. (The mongols that is, I'm assuming that locals would not want it in any case
)
Originally posted by Nikolai II
Still, if they really wanted to mongolize scandinavia, they could have.. ah.. I forgat the water, Sweden and Norway are safe, Denmark and Finland could get hit, but only if they really wanted it. (The mongols that is, I'm assuming that locals would not want it in any case
Indeed I also think Scandinavia will be spared completely during the Mongol invasions, whose main target will be Persia, Middle East and Asia Minor (their Polish campaign will also be interesting to watch)
On a lighter note why do people like Genghiz Khan and Tamerlane always choose the precisely wrong time to attack Asia Minor? (from a, well, Turkish point of view
) The former destroyed Rum Seljuks almost at their height while the latter crushed Ottomans just as they were about to finish off Byzantium
Originally posted by tuna
On a lighter note why do people like Genghiz Khan and Tamerlane always choose the precisely wrong time to attack Asia Minor? (from a, well, Turkish point of view
I haven't got the slightest, but I can concoct a theory for fun:
First the Seljuks become powerful, scaring the nomads, making them more prone to huddle up (for protection).
When huddled up in a bunch they feel invincible, and since powerful Seljuks = rich Seljuks -> time to loot.
Timur Lang iIrc actually used a pretext, something along the lines of Ottoman intolerance of religion or something, I'll see if I can dredge up a quote or something when I get home.
Still, Timur Langs is the funniest? when described quickly..
And then the Ottomans were besieging Constantinople that was close to fall, and their armies were as uncountable as the drops of water in the sea... and then Tamerlane came by, crushed them and brought their ruler home in an iron cage.
Fun, since you hear little (nothing) about Tamerlane in normal education, while both Ottomans and ERE/Byzantium are well known.
Agreed. I hadnever heard of Timur Lenk/Tamerlane while I was at school. Our history lessons might be a bit defective I think.
Liked your theory Nikolai, thousands of Seljuk lords huddled together on horseback was definitely a funny image
As for "Tamerlane" in high school history classes, well we have done alot of stuff on him IIRC--but only as it pertains to the Ottomans. The correspondance between him and Yildirim Beyazit, Battle of Ankara, Beyazit in a cage...the whole drill
Ironically, Timur is quite a popular name in modern Turkey (more so than Beyazit for sure)
Nice that you liked it, even if I muddied my post.
What I meant was that the nomads became scared of the Seljuks, and that made it easier for them to accept cooperating with other clans under single leadership.
And as soon as several clans are united under single leadership more clans will be coerced to join, and suddenly there appears a force, seemingly from nowhere, strong enough to shake empires in their foundations. And since said empires are wealthy, what better place to find loot enough to keep the 'alliance of nomads' coherent for a few more years, before it's inevitable fall into division.
For fun:
1336: Timur Lenk(Tamerlane) born.
1395: Timur defeats Khan Toktamish of the Kipchak Khanate (Golden Horde) and destroys its capitals.
1398: Timur conquers the Sultanate of Delhi, loots it and leaves it.
1400: Timur defeats the Egyptian Mamluk Sultanate in Syria.
1402: Bayazet bites the bullet, Timur whomps him as well. Still no interest from Timur in doing anything else than carrying gross amounts of loot home, and beutifying the landscape with some fresh towers built of human heads.
1405: Timur kicks the bucket while mustering his forces to attack China. His empire still falls in step with his leadership, and dies along with him.
What I meant was that the nomads became scared of the Seljuks, and that made it easier for them to accept cooperating with other clans under single leadership.
And as soon as several clans are united under single leadership more clans will be coerced to join, and suddenly there appears a force, seemingly from nowhere, strong enough to shake empires in their foundations. And since said empires are wealthy, what better place to find loot enough to keep the 'alliance of nomads' coherent for a few more years, before it's inevitable fall into division.
For fun:
1336: Timur Lenk(Tamerlane) born.
1395: Timur defeats Khan Toktamish of the Kipchak Khanate (Golden Horde) and destroys its capitals.
1398: Timur conquers the Sultanate of Delhi, loots it and leaves it.
1400: Timur defeats the Egyptian Mamluk Sultanate in Syria.
1402: Bayazet bites the bullet, Timur whomps him as well. Still no interest from Timur in doing anything else than carrying gross amounts of loot home, and beutifying the landscape with some fresh towers built of human heads.
1405: Timur kicks the bucket while mustering his forces to attack China. His empire still falls in step with his leadership, and dies along with him.
I see what you mean now very well, Nikolai---sorry was in a silly mood earlier on
What you describe above is quite accurate and interestingly explains the birth of the Ottoman state in a nutshell.
Ertugrul was an Oguz warrior / bey who commanded a modest number of men; his family was of the Kayi clan and had moved westwards to Sogut, to the Byzantine frontier. As the news of their sucessful incursions into Roman territory spread amongst other Turkic "warrior bands" the men serving under Ertugrul increased dramatically, allowing his son Osman to establish a sovereign beylik.
For an empire that died with him, it was in remarkably good health almost 50 years after his death, thanks mainly to the policies of Shah Rukh. It was only with the less-than-stellar administration of Ulugh Beg as sole ruler and the chaos that followed his assassination that caused Timur's empire to collapse in Persia. And even then it survived on in fairly good shape in Khurasan and Transoxania until the Uzbeks brought it down in the late 1490s and early 1500s...
It certainly wasn't like Alexander's empire, which fell into squabling pieces almost before the Macedonian conqueror's body was cold...
But it was.. the difference is that Sháh Rokh was the only one who made any great headway, while Timur's grandchildren only managed to break away smaller pieces and succumbed to in-fighting.
Ulugh Beg.. stellar.. eheh, get it? stellar
Seriously though, both Sháh Rokh and Ulugh Beg were more of artists than warrior kings, and seemingly Ulugh Beg fell prey to the 'third-generation-curse'.
But I agree and confess that claiming that it disappered with Timur's death was exaggarated, but on the other hand he hadn't increased it's size either, like Alexander had.
