Britain and Ireland Disappointing

[unmerged(20077)]

Looking at the mod as it is now, I don't think the British Isles have been done very well. Why is Wales part of Ireland? How did little Scotland manage to conquer most of England? How did the Bretons get involved in it all? How has history been altered to reach this state of affairs? With all due respect, it just looks like an exercise in making small countries big just for the weirdness of it.
So, here's an offering (which will probably be ignored, but what the hell ) on what actually might have happened to nerf England almost to non-existence...
Suppose royal marriages and CK-type stuff went differently, and the Bretons did indeed do much better out of it, maybe inheriting many of Henry II's possessions in France. Let's further suppose, going back further in history, that Cornwall had resisted Wessex more successfully and had remained semi-independent much has Wales did in the early mediaeval period. Then suppose England is more successfully in the late 14th century against France, not losing quite so much territory (which is why we have Guyenne).
And then it all starts to go wrong for England.
In 1381, the Great Peasant Revolt happened. This revolt was serious, and the peasants had a serious agenda: they didn't just burn things down, they demanded that all church property be shared out among the people and bishops abolished, on top of demands for social equality. Their most radical leader was Watt Tyler. In the end, Tyler was assassinated and the peasant army broke up - but what if they'd foiled the plot and actually seized power in South East England...?
The burghers of London wouldn't want angry peasants doing as they liked, so they put their heads together with the Hanseatic merchants of the city, and with soldiers from Flanders and Germany manage to drive the peasant army out of London - explaining why it's owned by the Hanseatic League.
In the rest of England, the great noble families fight it out for the crown and against the peasants' armies. All of which is the cue for the Welsh leader, Owain Glendwr, to make his move. Historically Glendwr plotted with the Duke of Northumberland, the Mortimer family, the Scots and the French to attack the English king on all fronts. The Mortimers would get the throne of England, Wales would take some territory on the borders, and Northumberland would rule over a breakaway kingdom in the North of England. If things had been more coordinated, it might actually have worked. In Aberration history, of course, it does work... let's let the Bretons get Cornwall, which feels some kinship with them and supports the invasion. Wales gets the Midlands province. Northumberland gets his independent kingdom of Northern England. The rest of England, of course, can't be taken by the Mortimers... the peasants win out and establish a Commonwealth of Free Englishmen. Before too long, Northumberland falls out with the Scots, is defeated and has to give up part of this territory.
So the map changes as follows:
Wales - not part of Ireland - gets Wales and Midlands (compensate Eire by giving them the Canaries...?)
Scotland has vanilla Scotland plus Northumberland only.
Norroy (a heraldic term for Northern England) is an independent state occupying Yorkshire and Lancashire. It starts the game as a vassal of Scotland. An event a bit later on might allow Scotland to annex it like Castile/Aragon and Poland/Lithuania.
London stays Hanseatic.
Brittany has Cornwall.
Guyenne is the territory in France that was English - no change.
The remaining English provinces are controlled by the peasants - the English Commonwealth. Because of its radical relgious policy, it would have Protestant religion like Bohemia in the vanilla game. It would, I imagine, turn into something like Switzerland, just sitting there saying "Don't touch us or else..!" with no king wanting to expand his power.
Anyone want to comment?

 

[unmerged(34301)]

I'd much rather leave the setup as-is. It would require loads of coding and be extraordinarily difficult to change. And their is (however shaky) basis for the setup. It's posted around here somewhere...the easiest way is to just read the country descriptions! It all revolves around the Battle of Hastings. Instead of outright victory, the battle was a mutual annihilation (several reasons for this, not going into it). England pretty darn much collapsed. Scotland was like "ooh free land" and proceeded to pounce on what was left of England. The south was saved by seeking protection from the Hansa, Brittany, and Eire. That's it in a nutshell.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

The Hanseatic League in 1066? The point about England in 1066 was that it was, as Trevelyan put it "a geographic expression" even if both sides had lost at Hastings, this wouldn't have made Northumbria vulnerable to attack from Scotland. The whole thing bears no scrutiny; it's founded on a total misunderstanding of how things worked.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

I think the complete overhaul The Impaler is proposing is a bit too much. What I do recognize is that Scotland is way too powerful, so removing some provinces is a good idea IMHO, but Britanny and the Hansa aren't too strong.
I would make Yorkshire, Lancashire, Lincoln & Midlands independent one-province minors (each vassal of respectively Eire, Scotland, Hansa and Britanny, or all of Scotland, or something in the middle), and part of an alliance (all four in one alliance). They would be remaining saxon nobles ('lesser kings') soon to be annexed.

I like your idea of a "republic of englishmen", but not that big and not that early. In fact, I'd well see a kind of events' sequence leading to a revolt of such a country - much like the Netherlands. This would be a Switzerland-like state, not a colonial power, and they would revolt because they've become the playing grounds of several countries (previously, an sequence giving crossed cores for Britanny, Eire, Hansa & Scotland on those future revolting provinces, and perhaps a war or two). English provinces are rather rich, so the question should be open for the players : try to keep them, or let them go ? But this shouldn't be too severe for the AI (I don't really want to see this republic pop up in each game, this should remain a possibility rather than a certainty).

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Impaler, you are right that first it was drawing a map with more obscure countries as majors and normal majors non-existing. Then after that we started to figure out answers to "Why?" and "When?".

Anyway, I think it went somewhat like that in Hastings, everyone who could have pressed some claim of owning it all went down and a period of fragmentation followed. Then as things didn't get anywhat unified, over the centuries Brittany, Hansa and Scotland absorbed the remaining fragmented anglo-saxons into their realms.

Adding various anglosaxon vassal minors into south England might work, but it needs tags and otherwise takes up resources for rather uncertain real gain.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

I can see England falling into rival statelets like France or Germany, but I can't see Wales being part of Ireland apparently on a "We are all Celts!" basis. The thing is, they didn't know they were all Celts until the 17th century. The Welsh wouldn't have been any happier being ruled by a foreign king from Ireland than by a foreign king from England or Normandy, so I think they should profit and get the Midlands, as per Glendwr's plan.

 

[arcorelli]

I can see England falling into rival statelets like France or Germany, but I can't see Wales being part of Ireland apparently on a "We are all Celts!" basis. The thing is, they didn't know they were all Celts until the 17th century. The Welsh wouldn't have been any happier being ruled by a foreign king from Ireland than by a foreign king from England or Normandy, so I think they should profit and get the Midlands, as per Glendwr's plan.

Well, for me is more like: England fall apart, any other country that can try to get some land (any). And an unified Ireland got lucky with Wales (and Brittany with south-western England and so on). And since the welsh coudl be as unhappy ruled by anyone, Ireland is as good as any too.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Yes, but the point is Scotland is too strong. What about turning some lands in to vassals instead of direct ruled provinces. The other powers need time to build a defence on the isle, and Scotland tend not to give them any.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

So, just give Scotland Northumberland plus Yorkshire and Lancashire as a vassal, Norroy, as I suggested, plus recreate Wales with the Midlands attached. If that's too weak, give Scotland Northumberland and Lancashire and have Norroy as a Scottish vassal with Yorks and Lincs.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Well, being the one who wrote up the fictional histories already included in the Aberration package (post-mapmaking, I might add; I was mainly trying to justify what was already done apparently at semi-random)...

After Hastings, where Normandy and England's armies were shattered (King Harold killed as was historic, but Duke William unable to assert control), Scotland tried to take over a chaotic, leaderless England. The most powerful nobles either caved to Scotland (in the north), were unable to resist, or put up a fight (the Mayor of London and the Earl of Wessex.) Scotland was defeated and forced to a status quo peace by a temporary London/Wessex alliance at Cambridge, and London and Wessex went their seperate ways as short-lived minors. London (in the meantime, perhaps a merchant republic like Genoa or Venice) eventually joined the Hansa, and Wessex (a super-duchy that I envisioned as something of a remnant of pre-Norman feudal England) pledged allegiance to its longtime ally, Brittany, when Brittany was made a Kingdom by the Pope later on (as part of the fall of France). Wales went with Ireland for similar reasons... none of the three, or even all three together, could hold out much hope against Scotland without offshore allies.

In fitting with that scenario, here's the modifications I could see as reasonable:

- Wales, Wessex, and/or London independent (this weakens offshore "major" powers in all three cases, and Wessex might itself become a medium power if it could somehow get its hands on London or Northern England). In an extreme case - although the original intent seemed to be to avoid recreating historic powers - one of these taking the bulk of England might be able to re-establish the kingdom. (I'd say it would require at least 7 out of the 10 provinces, and only be possible for Wessex, London, and any Scottish vassals.)

- Northern England as vassal states, rather than integral parts, of Scotland. Particularly Lancaster and York could have been powerful enough nobles that they allied with Scotland in that chaos rather than completely joining forces.

If Wessex proves too powerful, Cornwall could be split away from it as a vassal state, though I had not envisioned this.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

Well, being the one who wrote up the fictional histories already included in the Aberration package (post-mapmaking, I might add; I was mainly trying to justify what was already done apparently at semi-random)...

After Hastings, where Normandy and England's armies were shattered (King Harold killed as was historic, but Duke William unable to assert control), Scotland tried to take over a chaotic, leaderless England. The most powerful nobles either caved to Scotland (in the north), were unable to resist, or put up a fight (the Mayor of London and the Earl of Wessex.)

But there wouldn't be this chaotic, leaderless England. You would either have had Eadgar Atheling proclaimed king (as the Londoners tried to do as William approached) and that would be that, or the powerful earls Edwin and Morcar in Northumbria and Mercia would just have ignored what happened down south and become independent. Scotland wouldn't really come into it. On the other hand, Owain Glendwr's "everyone gang up on the King of England" scenario could easily net everyone else some land.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

And what if Eadgar was unavailable, or if Edwin and Morcar had allied with an aggressive Scotland? Or both?

 

[unmerged(21937)]

How about if Willy did take over and sent Edgar packing, but was wounded in Hastings and died of gangrene soon after. Then with Willy's sons as minors, the country breaks up with Leofricson brothers allying scots, Siward taking up the flag of saxon rebellion in Wessex and finally normans staying in London area. Then it could have some battling with end result as a standoff and fragmention, leading to what Sheridan initially planned?

 

[unmerged(20077)]

And what if Eadgar was unavailable, or if Edwin and Morcar had allied with an aggressive Scotland? Or both?

Unavailable? What, they could only get his voicemail? I don't follow. Even if somehow he wasn't in the picture someone would have been. Why would Edwin and Morcar bother to ally with Scotland? Scotland in the 11th century was a bit rubbish - hardly established as a proper kingdom at all.
Byakiam's suggestion runs into the same problem of Scotland still being very fragmented and weak at this time - its kings were too worried about how they could control Scotland to think of moving very far south.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Well, Leofricsons could have thought that better as allies of scots than as lackeys of norman invaders. Didn't they rebel in real history against Willy too?

 

[unmerged(33565)]

Unavailable? What, they could only get his voicemail? I don't follow. Even if somehow he wasn't in the picture someone would have been. Why would Edwin and Morcar bother to ally with Scotland? Scotland in the 11th century was a bit rubbish - hardly established as a proper kingdom at all.
Byakiam's suggestion runs into the same problem of Scotland still being very fragmented and weak at this time - its kings were too worried about how they could control Scotland to think of moving very far south.

I think you are just looking at this wrong. You asked in your first post if this was an exercise in making small countries big, well thats what this mod was made for originally. In some of the first readmes, it stated that the idea was to do away with some of the traditional powers and bring up the smaller states that don't do so well. Basically, after the set up was set, THEN they tried to explain it historically.

So does history completely support the set up, no. Do I think that it might be more historical if it is changed, sure. Do I think it should be change, no. Sure this is probably the least likely of all the changed things in this game, but what is all of this, fantasy. Maybe allies grew up different then it did, maybe Scotland was a truly organized kingdom by this point. Maybe, what if, thats what it all is, and maybe you should leave it that way.

So please, stop looking at this a historical change, it was more set up so that Scotland, Brittany, and Erie could be major powers, then trying to warp history to fit it. Not the other way around.

PS. Eadgar not available may mean he was dead, it is alternate history and it can be rewritten any way the creators want.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

I think you're assuming, Impaler, that up to the Battle of Hastings (as that is used as the main skew point for the British Isles part of Aberration) everything had proceeded exactly according to real history. Which may be true, but then, maybe not; we really don't know.

Also, the gravitation of Wales, Wessex and the southeast toward the various "offshore" powers was intended to have been a gradual process over a period of a couple centuries - a reaction to an ongoing military threat from a Greater Scotland that had conquered (or otherwise gained) the northern half of England in 1067 or shortly thereafter.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

So please, stop looking at this a historical change, it was more set up so that Scotland, Brittany, and Erie could be major powers, then trying to warp history to fit it. Not the other way around.

but

Aberration aims to create a totally different Eu2 experience in alternate history universe, where some things have gone a bit different.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Precisely. We based off of "real" history up to a point, but then things diverged. Those divergences aren't always clearly one specific day or person, it can be a whole collection of things put together.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

The current main problem, I think every body agrees, is that Scotland is too strong.

Making some of their provinces vassals might do the trick, but we might also use the cultures.
Both Scotland and Britanny have the anglosaxon culture. I propose to remove it. They are both seen as foreign invaders, as much as Hansa and Eire would be. They're all celtic or german invaders, not anglosaxon kings.
Then, both Britanny and Scotland would be slightly weaker.

As for the reasonning behind.
After Hastings, several factions were claiming the crown.
William of Normandy, winner at Hastings, died several weeks after, but in time to be crowned. Yet, his death proved fatal to the normand hold on England, and various nobles from the east were supporting Eadgar as king, backed up by the Hansa League. In the meantime, Eire put its hands on Wales, while Scotland acted backstage to support Edwin or Morcai as a new (puppet) king. Perhaps Edwin was supported by Scotland, and Morcai turned to Eire (or vice versa, I don't know where each of them held the most land and influence). So, Midlands went to Eire, Lincoln & Lancashire are a scottish vassal ; or, Midlands and Lincoln making separate independent one-province minors (allied with each other), and Lancashire & Yorkshire as vassals of Scotland and/or Eire.
Then, Normandy went under the "tutelage" of Britanny, which assumed control of the southwestern england (perhaps leaving Wessex to Normandy, or vassal of Normandy or Britanny).
In the 400 years that followed Hasting, Hansa continued, for a time, to support their puppet king, but just prior to the GC, perhaps from 1350 on, they "forgot" to elect a new king with the passing of the last, and they assumed direct control of the lands.
As time passes, Normandy and Lancashire will be inherited (perhaps in the course of the 1450-1460, since there's already an event for Normandy), claims passed respectively to Britanny and Scotland.
Then, as legitimacy of the claims dwindled, each country saw an opportunity to claim the kingdom anew, and to re-ignite the flames of war. Perhaps a similar event to the Division of Gaul could take place between all intervening countries, but with war as default solution.
And as a reward, a country that would finally conquer the bunch of the anglosaxon provinces (and possibly additional triggers) would get to be crowned King of England. This would NOT turn the country into england, just give the anglosaxon culture, some additional cores, money, or the like.