Year 900 Scenario

[Calgacus]

As to progress, what is there to say? Minor things get done here and there, but there is still much work.

The HRE is really a hard thing to go over. I have for a long time known a lot about it, but I have never really known when it stopped becoming a decentrialized state and started becoming several states. The additional tags will make it much harder, I was planning to use those tags for later nations.

1648 is your answer. The EMpire wanes after the death of Frederick II, but is still more powerful than France. The attachment of Spain through Karl V makes it the most powerful kingdom in Europe again. In the Thirty Years War, most of Europe allies against the German Kingdom, and afterwards, the Emperor has little effective power as emperor.

 

[unmerged(23019)]

Eh most people consider 1648 relatively late in the breakup of the empire...I consider it when the Golden Bull was passed in 1356. Many people consider it even earlier than that. For example, the MES has the HRE breaking up in the mid-1100s.

BTW this is a 900-1200 scenario, so 1648 isn't that important a date

 

[doktarr]

Eh most people consider 1648 relatively late in the breakup of the empire...I consider it when the Golden Bull was passed in 1356. Many people consider it even earlier than that. For example, the MES has the HRE breaking up in the mid-1100s.

BTW this is a 900-1200 scenario, so 1648 isn't that important a date

A very brief list of major 900-1200 Germany/HRE dates, gleaned from a couple websites:

911 Lorraine flops from east Francia (Germany) to west Francia (France).
922 the title of Emperor lapses when Burgundy captures northern Italy. (Before this the title didn't mean the same thing it meant later anyway.)
925 Lorraine goes back to east Francia
961/962 Otto conquers Italy, and claims the imperial title.
1025 With the death of the last Saxon emperor (Henry II), the process of electing emperors begins.
1032 Conrad inherits Burgundy, thus filling out the generally accepted boundaries of the empire (the "four crowns").
1075/1076/1077 The Investiture controversy - the pope essentially legalizes revolts in Germany, and indeed Saxony does revolt. According to this website, the emperor faced challengers from Swabia, Luxembourg, and Franconia for the next 25 years.
1122 The Concordat of Worms ends the investiture controversy, but robs the emperor of most of his religious power.
1158 Frederic Barbarosa declares "the leader is not bound by law" and reclaims imperial power in the face of a stronger pope.
1220/1232 Frederick II grants the german duchies formal ownership of their land, and the rights to tax and mint coin.

I mention the last one (even though it is past the time period) because, along with the interregnum in 1254-1273, this seems to represent the end of the centralized empire. Frankly, I can't find anything to suggest a massive decentralization from 1150-1200, although the splintering that happens in the Mongol scenario seems to be backed up by solid historical events. My guess is that events similar to those (various allies being granted control of certain regions in Germany) happened throughout the period. It's fair to model these as vassals, I suppose.

As far as the events above go... I think several revolters (at least four) should become active in 1175, and they should all have "crown of Germany" events as well. The empire should take some big centralization hits in 1025, 1175, and 1122, and should get more centralized in 1158.

 

[Khephren]

Another good HRE site

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm

 

[Calgacus]

Eh most people consider 1648 relatively late in the breakup of the empire...I consider it when the Golden Bull was passed in 1356. Many people consider it even earlier than that. For example, the MES has the HRE breaking up in the mid-1100s.

BTW this is a 900-1200 scenario, so 1648 isn't that important a date

The mid-1100s is a silly date. For me, the Empire reaches its medieval political peak during the reign of Heinrich VI (1190/1-1197), who acquires Norman Sicily and has the Byzantine Emperor emptying his ancestral graves for gold.

The Empire becomes disunified during the minority of Friedrich II, but nothing unsual.

It peak, ironically from your perspective, comes in the reign of Karl V, who fights off an alliance of Francis I and Suleiman the Magnificent - despite the Reformation. And the emperor is powerless ...LOL :rofl:


A reason that some people might say the Empire began to split in the mid-1100s is the document granting the new Duch of Austria special semi-independent rights. That document, however, is almost certainly a forgery!

The Empire has huge internal problems after the Konrad IV, Friedrich II's successor - an interregnum and dynastic instability. No doubt this harms the long term development of the German state, but nothing special.

By the 15th century, Spain, France and England have caught up and overtaken Germany in terms of centralization. The German Emperor tries to centralize too, but after these efforts are ended by Westphalia.

The GOlden Bull is actually, in some respects, an attempt to centralize, by blocking the three-vote veto and making the electorship more controllable through legally-induced petrification.

I think the most important factors which stop Germany reaching an early-modern level of centralization, and subsequently disintergrating, were:

1) The Reformation - which uniquely split Germany
2) The unresolved acquisition of Imperial territories by non-German kings (e.g. Burgundy)
3) The psychological impact of the Netherlands' change of status
4) The Thirty Years war, when almost all of West. Europe gangs up on the Emperor while he fights what was effectively a German civil war.

 

[VPeric]

My internet wasn't working the last several days, so I haven't had the chance to read all this. I will do monarchs for those Denmark and Sweden faction, as per King Yngvar's suggestions and I will try to do Cordoba too, I just need to do some research. About those files, I don't think I should post them here, because it would be too much, so how can I send it to you Mssr Roy. PM?? I mean, it would be good if people could see the files, so they could coment on them and improve them, but that would clutter up the topic too much (me posting all those monarch files) so what should we do?

 

[VPeric]

OK, I have done the monarchs for Denmark that King Yngvar has provided. That isn't the whole list, so could someone please add to it, as I have no idea what should I add. Also, I didn't change the ids, as you said you'll do it.

The file can be found here: http://vperic.web1000.com/900/db/monarchs_dan.txt

As for Cordoba, I have searched, and searched, and searched, and I couldn't find anything even remotely usefull. So could you help me please with some info??

 

[Dibo]

http://www.bartleby.com/67/app3.html

 

[VPeric]

What would we do without our Bulgarian friends??

Still, that doesn't help much because I need to know monarchs were good leaders, good diplomats etc. I can't just put 4/4/4 for all of them. But still thanks, because these names will be usefull

 

[Dibo]

What would we do without our Bulgarian friends??

Still, that doesn't help much because I need to know monarchs were good leaders, good diplomats etc. I can't just put 4/4/4 for all of them. But still thanks, because these names will be usefull

You have the names - it's up to Google and your local library

 

[VPeric]

What local library?

And BTW, nice site you got there, it's got loads of info, I'm surfing there right now.

 

[doktarr]

nice site you got there, it's got loads of info, I'm surfing there right now.

Yeah, it's really nice. You could do the entire monarch and leader files for Byzantium and several other nations just by reading through it.

On another subject - are we going to use Moctezuma's technology editor in this scenario? It seems like it could be useful. Some thoughts on it:

- We could make small forts appear later. A few provinces (like Constantinople, which was renowned for its fortificantions) could be hardcoded to have bigger forts at the start.

- We could replace artillery with something else. Siege engines are the obvious choice, but the thing is that they were never used on the battlefield in this period - they were only used in sieges. I think the best option would actually be archery. This would allow for the three major battlefield components of infantry, archery, and cavalry. One issue is that they would still give a siege bonus, unless the editor allows you to change that.

 

[doktarr]

religious mappings

Have the religions mappings been set? My suggestions are:

Eastern religions, and pagan -> unchanged
Orthodox -> Judaism
Catholic -> Catholic
Protestant -> Orthodox
Reformed -> Gnostic Christian heresies

I propose that mapping for the christian religions, because there may be nations that are allowed to convert from Catholic to Orthodox, and we don't want them to have to convert to heretical in between. I imagine that there won't be any heretical nations, although I suppose some nations could revolt as heretic, which could produce some strange results.

 

[VPeric]

... One issue is that they would still give a siege bonus ...

Flaming arrows?? I mean, AFAIK, flaming arrows were used quite a bit in those periods, so archer's siege bonus can be simulated by that. However, a bigger problem with that is the numbers. Did 10 archers actually do anything much in battle. No, not really. However, one could argue that archers are already represented in infantry, so archers are a bit of a moot point.

I think we should stick to siege weapons. From my experiance at EU2, artillery is only effective on the fields in ~50th level of land tech, which nations shouldn't be able to reach in out timeframe. It would be best if we could make artillery available from the start, but I guess that's impossible. Actually, I'm not at all familiar with that tech editor, can someone explain to me (in short) what can it do?

 

[unmerged(24379)]

Eastern religions, and pagan -> unchanged
Orthodox -> Judaism
Catholic -> Catholic
Protestant -> Orthodox
Reformed -> Gnostic Christian heresies

What do we really need judaism for to get their own color? I say paganism was a more important factor around 900. So my suggestion is:

Eastern religions: Unchanged
Orthodox: Orthodox
Catholic: Catholic
Protestant: Pagan
Reformed: Heretics

 

[VPeric]

The main problem is that we should try to make Orthodox faith appear only after the Great Schism, as it is called in English. Since in normal EU2, Orthodox exists from the start, we cannot make Orthodox appear at a set date, which is the current problem. However, we are kinda disputing that, though I don't know if anything has been really decided, so I don't know anything for sure.

BTW, could you provide monarchs for the Denmark faction I have done the monarch file for (look up for the link). I don't have all the monarchs up to 1200, so could you please help me with that, seeing that you contributed them in the first place. Monarchs for other factions would be nice, but if you don't have them, its okay.

 

[doktarr]

What do we really need judaism for to get their own color?

The Khazar Khanate was one of the major powers of the era, and was Jewish. You could also make an argument that some Abbasid and Byzantine provinces should start Jewish (probably not, but the argument can be made).

I say paganism was a more important factor around 900.

Is there some reason why paganism can't be used for paganism?

So my suggestion is:
Eastern religions: Unchanged
Orthodox: Orthodox
Catholic: Catholic
Protestant: Pagan
Reformed: Heretics

Problems with this setup, other than the lack of Judaism:

- Orthodox cant form in 1054, since the Orthodox religion doesn't have a reformation event. Having Orthodox seperate in 900 is a bit of a stretch, especially since that was the year of a major resolution of union between all the branches of the church.

- Orthodox and Catholic countries won't be able to force-convert each other. Force conversion in this era is at least as realistic as Protestants and Catholics force-converting each other in the 1500s, and probably moreso.

- Pagan nations will have all the wrong tolerance sliders. There's no reason they'd care about the difference between the branches of Christianity.

 

[VPeric]

Well, if we are going to make Orthodox be represented my Protestant, then I'm all for dokataar's plan. BTW, what are 'Gnostic Christian heresies'?? If it isn't something importnat, then we might as well not include them, just to make things a little easier.

 

[doktarr]

Flaming arrows?? I mean, AFAIK, flaming arrows were used quite a bit in those periods, so archer's siege bonus can be simulated by that.

Interesting thought.

However, a bigger problem with that is the numbers. Did 10 archers actually do anything much in battle. No, not really.

Can't you edit the recruitment numbers? I think it's possible.

However, one could argue that archers are already represented in infantry, so archers are a bit of a moot point.

My objection is that, before the development of a crossbow (which was about 1050 in the west, I think) There was a large amount of training that went into archers, and not so for a typical feudal levy. Maybe what I'm asking for is two classes of infantry - levies and soldiers. Levies have only slightly worse shock at first, but don't get a fire phase until the second half of the scenario. Soldiers get good fire ratings throughout, and steadily build a lead in shock rating (as armour technology improves). Obviously, this isn't the only way to go, but I think that it gives the scenario more depth, and more of a "period" feel, then siege engines do.

I'm not at all familiar with that tech editor, can someone explain to me (in short) what can it do?

I haven't used it, so my knowledge is hearsay. But my understanding is that it allows you to change which spots on the tech ladder give you the bonuses (like CRTs, manufactory construction, et cetera).

 

[VPeric]

Can't you edit the recruitment numbers?

If that is possible, I think that archers are excellent solutions. Remmember that I don't know much about modding, so I have no way of knowing if that is possible.

Maybe what I'm asking for is two classes of infantry - levies and soldiers. Levies have only slightly worse shock at first, but don't get a fire phase until the second half of the scenario. Soldiers get good fire ratings throughout, and steadily build a lead in shock rating (as armour technology improves). Obviously, this isn't the only way to go, but I think that it gives the scenario more depth, and more of a "period" feel, then siege engines do.

I don't like this levy - soldier thing. I probably don't quite understand what you meant to say, but I think we should stick to what we have. If you can change the recruitment numbers, I would stick with archers instead of arty.

I haven't used it, so my knowledge is hearsay. But my understanding is that it allows you to change which spots on the tech ladder give you the bonuses (like CRTs, manufactory construction, et cetera).

That sounds like quite a nifty program. Also, if that works as you said, it could serve as an alternative to what we should do with artillery. Just make them totally inaccessible. Do you know where we could find that program??