Questions about England

[Ameise]

I noticed what I perceive to be some issues with England in 1066, and I've made some statements and some suggestions, and would like comments thereon.

1, England, under William, starts at 0 stability. William the Bastard (as he was known in England before and for a while after the conquest) had just invaded England from Normandy, killed a King (Harold) who was considered a hero by his people (he had recently held off a Norse invasion), replaced the entire ruling class of England with French Normans, and was a Catholic. This should be better reflected as a stability of -3, with extremely low loyalty by remaining Saxon lords.

2, Although England was in the process of being Catholic, the majority of Angles, including the Kings (such as Harold) were professant of the Celtic Church, which was far closer to the Orthodox Church. Therefore, I suggest making Saxon characters Orthodox, and Saxon provinces Orthodox.

3, The lord that William had put into power did not necessarily have legitimacy or support as of yet, and would be better reflected by a very low stability.

It's well known that at the start of William's reign, his support was extremely shaky - the fact that his reign continued is more of a fluke of history than a fact. This is not well reflected in that when I, as Northumberland and a Saxon (who should probably have a virtual claim to the throne), invade the King's territory, he can raise an army of over 10,000 Saxons. Why would Saxons fight for a Norman king that they likely do not support, against a Saxon lord?

 

[Insignificant]

-3 stability in CK is pretty extreme usually -1 is enough to screw me over.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I

2, Although England was in the process of being Catholic, the majority of Angles, including the Kings (such as Harold) were professant of the Celtic Church, which was far closer to the Orthodox Church. Therefore, I suggest making Saxon characters Orthodox, and Saxon provinces Orthodox.

This would have the unwanted result that Saxon rulers will marry Byzantine and Russian woman all the time. Since the AI only searches for partners within their own religion.

 

[unmerged(219057)]

These are examples where gameplay is more important than realism. I am fairly certain that every realm begins with balanced stability.

As for the Saxons fighting for a Norman king...I think you might be nitpicking.

 

[StephenT]

Although England was in the process of being Catholic, the majority of Angles, including the Kings (such as Harold) were professant of the Celtic Church, which was far closer to the Orthodox Church.

Huh? The Synod of Whitby when the Anglo-Saxons accepted Roman Catholicism instead of the Celtic Church was almost exactly 400 years before the Norman Conquest. I doubt there were many Celtic Christians left in England after four centuries...

England starting with a low stability (though maybe not -3) does sound more realistic, however.

 

[Ameise]

Huh? The Synod of Whitby when the Anglo-Saxons accepted Roman Catholicism instead of the Celtic Church was almost exactly 400 years before the Norman Conquest. I doubt there were many Celtic Christians left in England after four centuries...

England starting with a low stability (though maybe not -3) does sound more realistic, however.

The Synod had very little to do with adoption of Catholicism, and very few historians believe it had any immediate effect, and it only affected Northumbria, anyways. It was indeed a "a triumphant push against an open door", as the Celts and Angles had already adopted the Roman dating for Easter. The Angles were very much leaning towards Catholicism by 1066, but were not Catholics; they were a mixture of Christian faiths. The Norman conquest rapidly accelerated the adoption of Rome as their patriarch.