How will vikings be handled?

[Orm]

What later historians have shown is that in the 12th and the 13th centuries, the nobility of Geatland was the driving force behind the centralization of Sweden. To a linguist, this does however not provide a satifying answer behind the name Svearike, (Sweorici in Beowulf).

We do not have historical sources that show where the Svear were located but we do have linguistic sources.

My personal theory is based on what I know about the history other countries, such as France, India and China. In these countries the ethnic name and the name of the country was carried by a "nobility". If we combine the traditional theory in which the Svear subjugated the Geats we may have had a Svealand nobility that took over the lands of the Geatish strongmen, and then we would have had a very typical development in which a foreign clan ruled a conquered territory.

This means that both the traditional theory and the modern theories may be right, and that our ancestors behaved like tribes all over the world.

The problem with historians is that like most of us, they usually only accept either or theories: Sweden was created either from Svealand or from Geatland.

Fair enough.
There seems to be a difference in how the administration of the two areas was set up though. One indication of that is from how the taxation developed, in Götaland it developed from the "gästning" (the king would go around visiting different places and stay there until there was no more food), in Svealand it developed from the "ledung" (the host of men and ships the king could call on for war). If 'nobility' from Svealand really replaced the ones in Götaland wouldn't they have brought with them the same way of doing things? It's possible that they wouldn't have, I'm just posing the question.

The name of Sweden in Scandinavian sources (even as young as Snorri) was 'Svitiod', isn't it possible that the use of 'Sverige' was taken over from Old English (Sweorici) via the english missionaries who were especially common in western Götaland? I know something similar to be the case with Denmark... the name was in use abroad before it first appeared on the Jelling rune stones (Tanmarkr) around 950 AD.

 

[Conrad]

Fair enough.
There seems to be a difference in how the administration of the two areas was set up though. One indication of that is from how the taxation developed, in Götaland it developed from the "gästning" (the king would go around visiting different places and stay there until there was no more food), in Svealand it developed from the "ledung" (the host of men and ships the king could call on for war). If 'nobility' from Svealand really replaced the ones in Götaland wouldn't they have brought with them the same way of doing things? It's possible that they wouldn't have, I'm just posing the question.

The name of Sweden in Scandinavian sources (even as young as Snorri) was 'Svitiod', isn't it possible that the use of 'Sverige' was taken over from Old English (Sweorici) via the english missionaries who were especially common in western Götaland? I know something similar to be the case with Denmark... the name was in use abroad before it first appeared on the Jelling rune stones (Tanmarkr) around 950 AD.

You have some good points, there.

 

[Orm]

I just came to think of how fitting it would be if 'Sverige' turned out to be our first English loan-word.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Norman's will have an important part of the game if you count Sicily as Norman lands.A leader like Bohemund and Tankred should be of the best you can get in the game ,the former being the one that took Antiohia in the first Crusade ,the second one expanded that territory.Bohemund later tried to attack the Byzantine's but took the unfortunate landing spot that was Albania ,his elite army of norman horsemen were killed more by attrition rather than by Byzantine troops.But theoreticly ,the horsemen army of Bohemund should be the quality wise the best army in the time period ,until the Mongelian's arive.

 

[Styrbiorn]

The name of Sweden in Scandinavian sources (even as young as Snorri) was 'Svitiod', isn't it possible that the use of 'Sverige' was taken over from Old English (Sweorici) via the english missionaries who were especially common in western Götaland?

Probably not. The form Svíariki appears in the sagas and, if I recall correctly, on some runestone.

 

[Orm]

Probably not. The form Svíariki appears in the sagas and, if I recall correctly, on some runestone.

None of which predate the arrival of the missionaries much. But my theory is pretty weak anyway.

 

[Styrbiorn]

None of which predate the arrival of the missionaries much. But my theory is pretty weak anyway.

Yes. The cases were people have let foreigners name their country without actually conquering the place are not plentiful.

 

[Orm]

Yes. The cases were people have let foreigners name their country without actually conquering the place are not plentiful.

True, but if you restrict it to countries where some of the leaderships' authority derives from foreign influence the percentage may be higher.
Besides, the christian missionaries did conquer us.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Of course the use of 'rike' / rice doesn't necessarily imply central authority anyway. Doesn't in OE at any rate.

 

[Styrbiorn]

Of course the use of 'rike' / rice doesn't necessarily imply central authority anyway. Doesn't in OE at any rate.

It means rule or "ruledom".

 

[Conrad]

Let's face it there has been a continuous identification in Southern Scandinavia, between Scandinavians and a "Svea" identity. It doesn't matter if it was a special group of Geats or people in the Mälar valley.

As long as that tribal name seems to have existed continuously we have had a "sveavälde" (Swede rule), "Svearike" (Swede rule) or a "Svithiodh" (Swedish people). Judging by the Romans there was such a group 2000 years ago.

The claim that this denomination started to exist with the establishment of a centralized state is ideological or political categorization, and has little to do with ethnicity.

 

[Orm]

Well, if you put it like that...

 

[unmerged(24379)]

A jarl decided almost as much as the king, some jarls even went to war without the kings accept.

The last jarl with any great power in Norway was Eirik Håkonsson, and he died at Nesjar in 1016, so I guess the same does not go for Norway. From what I know, later, the jarls were more having a military function instead of a local landowner function. There were lagmenn, lawmen, who governed smaller areas of Norway, but they would never go to war with a foreign nation by themselves. The tought of that would be ridicolous. They governed the land for the king, and the king could raise troops there as he pleased. During the reign of Eirik Prestehater (Priesthater), Norway was mostly governed by Dukes, Barons and Jarls. But they governed in his name, they did not hold their own countries with borders to Norway, they did not work against eachother and make war on eachother and the kingdom, they were just very powerfull and had much influence on the king. But when they went to war, it was in the king's name.
Norway had been unified for some time when this game starts, and having vassals within Norway I don't understand the meaning of.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

I don't know about the connotations of 'rike' in Old Norse but in Old English it's best translated as 'realm' rather than 'lordship', 'kingdom' or similar.

 

[Orm]

I don't know about the connotations of 'rike' in Old Norse but in Old English it's best translated as 'realm' rather than 'lordship', 'kingdom' or similar.

I think it would be in Old Norse too.

 

[Conrad]

The last jarl with any great power in Norway was Eirik Håkonsson, and he died at Nesjar in 1016, so I guess the same does not go for Norway. From what I know, later, the jarls were more having a military function instead of a local landowner function. There were lagmenn, lawmen, who governed smaller areas of Norway, but they would never go to war with a foreign nation by themselves. The tought of that would be ridicolous. They governed the land for the king, and the king could raise troops there as he pleased. During the reign of Eirik Prestehater (Priesthater), Norway was mostly governed by Dukes, Barons and Jarls. But they governed in his name, they did not hold their own countries with borders to Norway, they did not work against eachother and make war on eachother and the kingdom, they were just very powerfull and had much influence on the king. But when they went to war, it was in the king's name.
Norway had been unified for some time when this game starts, and having vassals within Norway I don't understand the meaning of.

IIRC, the Swedish Jarl, Birger Jarl, was so powerful, in the 13th century, that he was the de facto king of Sweden and launched wars. Not surprisingly his son became the next king.

 

[Orm]

IIRC, the Swedish Jarl, Birger Jarl, was so powerful, in the 13th century, that he was the de facto king of Sweden and launched wars. Not surprisingly his son became the next king.

I was under the impression that he ruled in the name of his son. Birger was opposed to his son being elected, but settled for the second best thing.

 

[Conrad]

I was under the impression that he ruled in the name of his son. Birger was opposed to his son being elected, but settled for the second best thing.

As I wrote, it was IIRC.