Scotland

[unmerged(51398)]

Could you perhaps mail me the file then you need me to look at? I'll PM you my e-mail, and have a look at it as soon as I can.


Edit; Alright, sent you a big list of things to fix about the file. For the curious, Ireland was approached as if Gaelic monarchies were feudal. Which they weren't. Gaelic law is far more similar to a kind of modern republic in many ways. Feudal monarchs and feudal laws were forbidden under 'Tyranny Law'; that meant that establishing primogeniture, land ownership, tenancy, the king changing laws alone, etc., were all illegal. Gaelic law had 'equivalency' in a sense; everyone was punished by the law. However, it wasn't totally equal, but in a way most don't expect. The higher one's station, the more harsh the punishment; one was fined or banished depending on the charges. The fines were higher if your station was higher; if you couldn't afford the fine, you were removed from power. While the names people use in reference to the Irish aristocracy evoke imagery of a feudal society, they're of little genuine consequence, the society isn't very feudal at all, except the paying of tribute, but even that went to a treasurey, and wasn't a noble's private money to spend; he had to be able to make his own money or freely given donations. If he had to ever rely on the treasurey, he would be removed from power. The treasurey existed only, except in special case, to fund: the army (part of it), building roads, asylums, and hospitals. They paid for their own palaces and the like out of their own pocket, not out of the treasurey, which was administered by a few brehon (judges/arbiters/lawyers) acting as treasurers. A lot of the file seems more reminiscent of post-Norman Ireland, when feudalism was instated. A Gaelic Ireland though is a whole different thing.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

snip for space

Legend obsession; Ireland's history is largely legendary and they were very serious about it. The Irish believed quite fervently their ancestors came from many regions, but specifically parts of northern Iberia (Galaecia) and around Aquitane. Events giving Eire, or Scotland if they control Ireland, cores in those regions, could provide some excuse for lengthy wars over unusual properties in Europe one might not initially associate Gaels with.


Okay, think I'm done talking for now.

Last genetic studies I saw give some credence to that. The Basques and the Scots and Irish are extremely similar and even share some very specific markers.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Ranika..

Don't know if have an opinion on the Gaelic church. From what I understand from my admitadly less extensive then your own reading; it appears to me that the Irish/Scotish Catholic church was a lotttttt more laid back in comparison to its' continental brethren. Well at least before outside influences started to come in along with the non-invited peddlers of said influence...

If we do not have a post Norman Ireland (well to the extent that we do IRL), or Scotland should it not follow that they would continue on their not quite heretical but still not quite the lapdog of the Pope ways?

On a related note, I would think that the Gaels would be a bit more innovative then narrow minded, as they were "traditional" without being hidebound by it. Cleverness was it seems to me always considered to be a virtue by them, even when it might step on a toe or two and the entire tannistry set up is one that would be in my understanding of what the game means by "narrow minded" the antithesis of it.

I don't think that there would have been an Irish or Scotish Torquemada is what I am trying to get at here...

 

[unmerged(51398)]

Laid back in what sense? The Irish chiefs regularly sent tribute to the Pope; they literally tithed ten percent of all income to the church. And, in all fairness, a 'Torquemada' is a byproduct more of local issues than fervency and loyalty to the Pope (considering Tomás de Torquemada was pretty hated by the Pope anyway; he was the only Inquisitor to actually order executions himself, which was forbidden; the Inquisition was supposed to hand the offender over to local authorities, and let them do what they wanted; the person would be excommunicated {that was the most Inquistors could legally do; Torquemada broke numerous laws and was eventually ordered to surrender his position, though, in truth, despite modern wags, he wasn't much more brutish than secular authority in most kingdoms of the day, and numbers of his executions are greatly exaggerated; he only had executed around 2000-2500 people, only personally condemning about a 1/5th of those}, and in most kingdoms, just banished). The Gaels didn't allow chiefs or any nobles to have consorts, and punished people harshly for infractions of Christian law, with weighty fines and expulsion (should be noted that Gaels never executed people, though one could be declared something akin to a non-person, and then it was no longer illegal for the offended family to kill him).

The reason there was no major Inquisition in Ireland is because local heresy was rooted out easily by local fervor; the Irish arrested and banished heretics of their own accord, and never needed an inquisitor's assistance (people had been doing all this by themselves in Europe for centuries; Inquisition was a 'people's' institution that the church organized to actually cut down the number of executions because there were generally no trial or inquiry in non-sanctioned Inquisition). A single Inquisitor was assigned to Ireland once (a Welsh priest named John ap Rhys), but his opinion was that the local law prevented the mass executions of the slightest accusation, which was more problematic in other parts of Europe, so the Inquisition was dismantled before John ap Rhys actually tried anyone. Heresy was illegal, if you were tried and convicted for it, they confiscated all your possessions, and kicked you out of the kingdom, naked. Gaels were very strict, and there wasn't a 'Gaelic' Church anymore anyway; the Celtic rite had been unified with the Roman for centuries by this point. The only remaining differences, still present in some regions today, are the use of the Celtic tonsure (shaving the front half of the head, not a spot in the middle) by monks, and some still perform full body baptism.

Also, tanistry is an ancient system. And they were staunchly traditional, and were more hidebound in certain ways than one might realize. They should not be to the hardest extent 'narrow-minded', but they should have a definite initial lean that way. In game terms, it also means they get more missionaries (Ireland's kingdoms were some of the only were the church actually had the right to collect taxes, not just tithes; church-lands were considered equal to clan dominions, so they should be able to produce a ton of missionaries). Ireland's preservation as a national identity was due to being so tightly devoted to tradition; as heavily diluted as it has been, an Irish culture still exists, and it is unlikely an Irish state would exist if not for being so remarkably fervent about their own culture.

Again on the Pope, I don't see the 'not quite heretical' portion. They weren't remotely heretical; Ireland was a center of Christian learning in Europe, and after the 1030s, was considered the most important center of monastic study in western Europe. In fact, Normans largely justified the invasion as trying to prevent damage to the monastaries by stopping the civil war (which had just petered out, because Dermot MacMurrough had fled). Also, take into account that the entire position of Ard Ruire is based on church recognition of their title; Brian Boru gave the Archbishop of Ard Macha (Armagh) a sum of gold in exchange for church support of the position, and that Ireland itself be a quasi-vassal of the Pope. During the Crusades, no kingdoms had larger percentages of the actual armies volunteer to go (the keyword being volunteer) and fight. Their loyalty to the Church in the middle ages is unquestionably tight, because the Church is the key to any stability they might have. They were united largely because church institutions encouraged it, and supported it. In fact, many Irish and Scottish Catholic bishops admonished the bishops of England and Wales for their unorthodoxy and sometimes accused them of weak loyalty to the Pope; that's not a hallmark of people disassociated with the Pope. That said, one doesn't need even be that devoted to not wish to change their religion; the Catholic Church was part of the Irish government though. However, many who weren't 'lap dogs' were far more severe than the Irish had been (the French for example; they regularly told the Pope to stuff it, but dang if they didn't get quite serious about heresy).

And, of Galicia/Aquitane; that's true, but they had no real proof then, and the account is still legendary. Legend is not necessarily myth; it is not false. It is more trumped up. I mean, no one actually saw Ireland from a tower in northern Iberia. The first king of Ireland wasn't named 'Mil Esus' (the name means 'Soldier of Spain'). However, coming from across the sea is quite definite, but the legend focus is no less serious (and no less legendary; I mean, come on, the Scots said their name came from an Egyptian princess, which is total BS; it comes from a Romano-British word for Gaelic pirates). The Galicia/Aquitane connection is referenced by the Book of Invasions, but, it talks about races of giants and things like that, which are just trumped up nonsense, loosely based on actual people, mixed with pure invention. However, it could be used as justification for gaining cores in northern Iberia, and Aquitane, strengthed by events with Iberians fleeing to Ireland. It'd certainly give the Irish some strength to the claim.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

what I meant by "laid back" and "not quite heretical" is their tolerance for some rather eccentric local customs in comparison to other parts of Europe. They were not as stiff as their brethren when it came to collisions between local custom and church doctrine.

Especially when it came to tannistry, which from everything that I have read does not exclude illegitimate children from their birthright something that was strictly enforced on the continent (except if you were a German noble and married the girl after the birth of the child making them retroactively legit).

Also I have come across some things that would seem to indicate that the Pope would periodicly have some concerns about his level of control of the Gaelic church and how they did things. Doesn't mean that they were not devout, nor does it mean that they were any less "Catholic" just that they were a bit more moderate in tone and tenure then the rest of the Church during the late pre-game period and early game timeframe.

And that is something that I have a feeling would continue in the game without the outside pressure of the English constantly mucking up the works and depending upon how the reformation susses out the Gaelic Catholics may not feel like a camp besieged and as a result not be as rigid as they became.

The best analogy for what I am trying to convey here... and I really should avoid posting at hours well past midnight.. is if you visualize the Church as a choir all singing the same note, the Gaelic church was singing a harmonic of that note without drifting off key into heresy.

 

[unmerged(51398)]

I don't see what you're getting at, or how that'd not allow them to be 'narrow-minded'. In their minds, that was tradition. A narrow-minded society in realistic terms would cling to tradition. They would be ostensibly more narrow-minded than their neighbors because of the refusal to adopt feudalism; they keep a freer society, but it's a traditional society. It may be seemingly more modern by our standards, but back then, it was seen as horrendously backwards. And what popes were concerned with control of the Gaelic church after it was unified with the Roman rite? The only concerns I'd ever read were that the monastaries and universities were in danger from the wars (which had pretty much ended by the time of the Norman invasion, but it had not ended long before, so the Normans still used it as leverage). Their local custom was, also, largely supported by the church locally at this point, and, as far as they were concerned, they were being good, devout Christians; just because they may have seemed a bit unusual in their practices to foreigners doesn't make them personally anymore open-minded; their desire to keep local customs makes them more close-minded (I don't see why accepting more 'generalized' church practices would be seen as a narrow-minded approach, considering that that would be introducing new things, not keeping old things).

Incidentally though, religion never played a major part in Ireland's development in the middle ages until the Reformation and having to deal with the Anglican reformers; the major religious developments were dark age developments. While the church still had a lot of power, Ireland's technological development was from trade; they could still be plenty narrow-minded (by the DP terminology), and benefit from trade (maybe a few events depending on how open their markets are). Also, narrow-minded in this sense is more to get the appropriate effects out of the game; they'd have a lot of missionaries, and Ireland is supposed to be a colonial power in this history.

Also, Gaels were open-minded only to their own eccentricities. Think about the Picts; almost every aspect of their culture was wiped out, because Gaelic chiefs made it illegal. They had to learn to speak, dress, and in general act Gaelic. That isn't a hallmark of open-mindedness. Also, Gaels had tendency to call other cultures by derogatory names and declare other kings tyrants. They weren't open to foreign culture on a massive scale (even if some nobles in the east were, when dealing with Normans, but even they were really begrudging to change, but did it more out of agreements they'd made). They were considered courteous to foreigners, but if they conquered England, over a few hundred years, the move would not be to integrate them, it'd be to wipe out the majority of their culture. The only exceptions would be those who joined them willingly (like when Lothian joined Alba), because they weren't conquered, so it meant that it wasn't fair to impose their form of civility on them.

In all reason, gaining territory should probably tie to a few events on how to deal with territory; leaving the locals alone, instating their own culture, etc. And not just for Gaels, but for everyone. Gaels weren't any different; a lot of people outlawed foreign languages and all manner of things, and Gaels did the same thing, which is not open-minded (but in fairness, it was a necessity at the time due to the difficulties of medieval administration and the intense culturalism, as opposed to nationalism, which was dangerous to a kingdom's stability a lot of the time; still not open-minded). And like I said, they shouldn't be to the utmost extent narrow-minded, but they should lean that way. Even if they seem 'laid back', that was what they'd been doing as far as history records them, with incredibly little change. They may be more relaxed in as much as dealing with foreigners, but if they conquered a foreign country, they'd probably not just let it stay how it is, considering they believed other cultures oppressed people wantonly and it upset them; they'd introduce their legal and governmental system at least, which alone is pretty much a good chunk of Gaelic culture. Though, if you'd want, I suppose could have a few events set up, maybe, where they try to be more open when taking provinces in Europe, possibly gaining Brythonic and Iberian culture (related to events making claims on regions with said culture, which there do exist both such possibilities), moving toward more open-minded, with the option of wiping out local culture to replace it with a unified Gaelic culture. It shouldn't be much related to religion, since many of the things they could do religiously would cancel eachother out. If they accepted more generalized church doctrine (which there wouldn't be much left to accept anyway; it'd more mean wiping out a lot of local customs, which had nothing to do with accepting doctrine; every part of Europe had local customs), they'd still produce a lot of missionaries, but technically it'd be introducing new ideas, which is not narrow-minded.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Ranika...

I think that the game uses Narrow minded and Open minded in a more absolute fashion then that. It is not a measure so much of whether or not a people are traditional in their customs but how curious they are, how inquisitive. All peoples stick to their traditions, that is part of what defines them as a "people"; but not all of them are narrow minded in a way that will cause them too take it in the shorts tech research wise.

For me the crux of whether a people are narrow or open minded for the DP slider is whether or not they would put to practical application their minds to solving a problem, would they stick to what their anscestors did or would they see the benefit of using something new.

 

[unmerged(51398)]

Ranika...

I think that the game uses Narrow minded and Open minded in a more absolute fashion then that. It is not a measure so much of whether or not a people are traditional in their customs but how curious they are, how inquisitive. All peoples stick to their traditions, that is part of what defines them as a "people"; but not all of them are narrow minded in a way that will cause them too take it in the shorts tech research wise.

For me the crux of whether a people are narrow or open minded for the DP slider is whether or not they would put to practical application their minds to solving a problem, would they stick to what their anscestors did or would they see the benefit of using something new.

I still don't see Gaels as 'open-minded' in this case. What vastly new ideas did they accept unless they were imposed upon? Arguably Gaels never really had to adopt a lot until the Norman conquests when it was imposed on them by Norman lords, and even then, it was more the introduction of the longbow, and some of the Gaelic knights began wearing plate harnesses when those came about. Gaelic soldiers still precursored charges with javelins and slings into the late middle ages, and some even later, right to the point of replacing them with pistols to fire before charging because they didn't want to be disadvantaged facing those with rifles. That's more necessity that open-mindedness to new technology (and the Irish had plenty of access to new things; Cork, Wexford, and Dublin were all quite busy with trade, Cork and Wexford had been under the Irish, Dublin not till the English came {incidentally, Dublin shouldn't be the city in Meath; Dublin was unimportant under the Irish; the English used it for administration purposes, Teamhair is preferable; same thing goes for Belfast}).

Again, I only think there should be a narrow-minded lean. It'll produce more missionaries, and more colonists, both of which Eire should have. The Irish would adopt things if they needed to, but they wouldn't be on the cutting edge of adapting new technology, except possibly naval technology, and that'd be in response to desiring exploration; can tie it to funding the navies (or the armies) privately, and movements to making the island more 'open-minded', but it shouldn't start that way. The only thing they really tended to be really open-minded about, of all the things, was foreign poetry (though even then, most Irish poets apparently didn't like it, and would rewrite large portions of it; the only stuff they didn't change much was poetry they got from the eastern Romans, who also bought most of the exported poetry books Ireland produced).

I don't see why them being a little narrow-minded is a bad thing. It gives them impetus to be a colonial power, and they'd not be so much that it'd massively hamper them developmentally with technology. However, becoming some manner of cosmopolitan nation on the cusp of development would take more than a few centuries from where history diverges allowing an Irish kingdom to stabilize and exist. I am accounting that it'd change somewhat; Ireland around the time of Rory O'Connor would be very narrow-minded. They'd only open up at all because the expansion of trade would be benefited by it. I'm not saying Ireland shouldn't open up more, but Ireland in the mid-to-late 1400s wouldn't be jumping at the bit to introduce everything it can. There'd still be stability issues and other such that'd keep them too concerned internally to want everything they can from outside. Maybe link some events to assurances that the lesser kings are done with petty conflict, or even the brehons outlawing clan war (which is, in Gaelic law, unrelated to politics; those are about minor personal disputes between families that weren't resolved in court). After that, the island would be able to open up an awful lot more, much quicker, because there'd no longer be a lot of internal problems. A lot of said changes could, presumably, happen prior to the game starting, but that'd leave out a lot of potentially interesting occurences, and some of it would just be unlikely (like outlawing clan war; that could occur, but it'd likely not occur until the kingdom is stabilized a bit, and clan war actually detrimentally affects that stability). I am quite opposed to them starting on the side of open-minded though. I'd settle for in the middle maybe, at the most, if it's really so important to you.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

All this is fascinating, but the idea of Northumberland being converted to speaking Gaelic and wearing different clothes is as far into fantasy as would be Navarre making Parisians speak Basque.

 

[MattyG]

This mod will owe a lot to you two and your strong understanding of the cultures of the British Isles.

It seems fairly clear to me that Eire's DP sliders ought to begin as follows:

Aristocracy: 3 ( quite plutocratic, especially compared to the rest of Europe)
Innovative: 2 (narrow-minded, also an advantage for a colonizer, works well)
Centralization: 2
Mercantilism: 1 (allmost the first capitalist nation, it would seem)
Serfdom: 3 (event lower?)

Matty

 

[MattyG]

All this is fascinating, but the idea of Northumberland being converted to speaking Gaelic and wearing different clothes is as far into fantasy as would be Navarre making Parisians speak Basque.

The change in a province's culture doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the language spoken by the majority of the common people.

Culture in EU2 is a bit of a shifty concept, but we have taken it to refer to social and legal systems in play and the culture of the ruling elites of a region.

Wales converts to Anglo-Saxon in vanilla. It does not mean the common Welsh folk all spoke English and played cricket in the time of Henry the VIII, but it does indicated the final political submission of the Welsh.

Ditto all the provinces we have called Occitan in Aberration. They ought to start out as Occitan in vanilla to, but they have oversimplified it. They all converted to French in the 1600s (again, only in the EU2 concept of culture) following Richelieu's enforcement of French as the only accepted language for all administration and legal affairs.

In the areas where the Islamic and Christians worlds collide the process is posited a little differently, when we assume the more brutal enforcement of an imposed religion or the wholesale exile of people and their replacement with immigrants.

In summary, given long enough rule by a Gaelic nation and the impostition of Gaelic law and social structures, and the local elites coming to accept the 'inevitable', that its here to stay, this satisfies culture change for me, as far as I conceive of it in the pre-nationalism of the broad-brush EU2 world.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

I still don't see Gaels as 'open-minded' in this case. What vastly new ideas did they accept unless they were imposed upon? Arguably Gaels never really had to adopt a lot until the Norman conquests when it was imposed on them by Norman lords, and even then, it was more the introduction of the longbow, and some of the Gaelic knights began wearing plate harnesses when those came about. Gaelic soldiers still precursored charges with javelins and slings into the late middle ages, and some even later, right to the point of replacing them with pistols to fire before charging because they didn't want to be disadvantaged facing those with rifles. That's more necessity that open-mindedness to new technology (and the Irish had plenty of access to new things; Cork, Wexford, and Dublin were all quite busy with trade, Cork and Wexford had been under the Irish, Dublin not till the English came {incidentally, Dublin shouldn't be the city in Meath; Dublin was unimportant under the Irish; the English used it for administration purposes, Teamhair is preferable; same thing goes for Belfast}).

Again, I only think there should be a narrow-minded lean. It'll produce more missionaries, and more colonists, both of which Eire should have. The Irish would adopt things if they needed to, but they wouldn't be on the cutting edge of adapting new technology, except possibly naval technology, and that'd be in response to desiring exploration; can tie it to funding the navies (or the armies) privately, and movements to making the island more 'open-minded', but it shouldn't start that way. The only thing they really tended to be really open-minded about, of all the things, was foreign poetry (though even then, most Irish poets apparently didn't like it, and would rewrite large portions of it; the only stuff they didn't change much was poetry they got from the eastern Romans, who also bought most of the exported poetry books Ireland produced).

I don't see why them being a little narrow-minded is a bad thing. It gives them impetus to be a colonial power, and they'd not be so much that it'd massively hamper them developmentally with technology. However, becoming some manner of cosmopolitan nation on the cusp of development would take more than a few centuries from where history diverges allowing an Irish kingdom to stabilize and exist. I am accounting that it'd change somewhat; Ireland around the time of Rory O'Connor would be very narrow-minded. They'd only open up at all because the expansion of trade would be benefited by it. I'm not saying Ireland shouldn't open up more, but Ireland in the mid-to-late 1400s wouldn't be jumping at the bit to introduce everything it can. There'd still be stability issues and other such that'd keep them too concerned internally to want everything they can from outside. Maybe link some events to assurances that the lesser kings are done with petty conflict, or even the brehons outlawing clan war (which is, in Gaelic law, unrelated to politics; those are about minor personal disputes between families that weren't resolved in court). After that, the island would be able to open up an awful lot more, much quicker, because there'd no longer be a lot of internal problems. A lot of said changes could, presumably, happen prior to the game starting, but that'd leave out a lot of potentially interesting occurences, and some of it would just be unlikely (like outlawing clan war; that could occur, but it'd likely not occur until the kingdom is stabilized a bit, and clan war actually detrimentally affects that stability). I am quite opposed to them starting on the side of open-minded though. I'd settle for in the middle maybe, at the most, if it's really so important to you.

I could accept a slight lean since you do bring up the very good point of colonists... call it a 3-4 and I am mostly comfortable.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

All this is fascinating, but the idea of Northumberland being converted to speaking Gaelic and wearing different clothes is as far into fantasy as would be Navarre making Parisians speak Basque.

or about as likely as Anglia making the Highlands or Grampians speak English and wear pants...

It is all dependent upon who has the power, and what will win you benefits from the ruling class, plus a little governmental pressure. In the right proportions you end up with things like India being an English speaking nation.

Just as England forced a shift in the cultural and linguistic norms of Scotland, Scotland should be able to do the same over a small section of England at the very least.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

This mod will owe a lot to you two and your strong understanding of the cultures of the British Isles.

It seems fairly clear to me that Eire's DP sliders ought to begin as follows:

Aristocracy: 3 ( quite plutocratic, especially compared to the rest of Europe)
Innovative: 2 (narrow-minded, also an advantage for a colonizer, works well)
Centralization: 2
Mercantilism: 1 (allmost the first capitalist nation, it would seem)
Serfdom: 3 (event lower?)

Matty

Is serfdom a reflection of actual serfdom or does it also encompass slavery or debt bondage?

 

[unmerged(30761)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galwegian_Gaelic

 

[Incompetent]

Now, for the ideas you propose above, I guess it's up to Incompetant and I to get cracking at some point and make all of this real. Incompetant is in charge of the Scottish file, but I think of the Eire file as my oy baby, so we need to cooperate.

There appear two ways that Alban and its succeeding events come into existence. The first is by a secession from Scotland. This needs to be Incompetant's baby and it would be easier for him to write all the events there, likely beginning with whatever event would 'lose' gaelic culture, the move to York, say. Incompetant could also write the Eire events that form part of this cycle, as weel, of course, as the A;ban events (yes, we need to create a new country with Tag and the rest).

Whereas, perhaps I can handle the entire cycle that stems from the Eire side of things, wherein they lay claim to the Gaelic part of Scotland.

My timing suggestion is as follows:

1. Eire claiming the Gaelic parts of Scotland must occur before the other events/cycles.

2. The Alban secession approach triggers from the event that sees Scotland's capital move to York, gaining Inglis culture and losing Gaelic, or:

3. The Emperor of the Gaels scenario would gebin at the same point, with Scotland chosing to keep its capital in Lothian. Inglis culture not gained, Gaelic retained and the Emperor scenario begins to unfold.

Once past that point I'd say that other avenues need to be dead to keep things simple, and that all of it needs to be 'over and done with' before the Reformation really hits.

Keeping the capital in Lothian is not synonymous with going all-Gaelic and turning into Alba, especially as Lothian itself is the heart of Inglis culture in Scotland/Alba. Rather, it affords the possibility (though not the obligation) of accommodating the Highlanders, though Gaelic is now a national culture rather than the primary one. This is already represented in the Scottish event file. The 'York or Edinburgh?' decision is one which Scotland must make some time after deciding not to pursue the Alba route.

OTOH Dun Eideann (Edinburgh, but with its Gaelic name) is the obvious capital for Alba as I understand it, so there's no need to offer them the capital move.

In any case, the cultural decision on Scotland's part must be made very early. As I say Scotland is already a long way down the road of Anglianisation, so it should start with Inglis as a national culture and probably as its primary culture. The Alba choice would be partly 'maintaining our traditions' but to a large extent it would be actively restoring them, a kind of Gaelic renaissance in the Scottish establishment.

Just as Scotland stands on the crossroads, so does Eire in its relations with Scotland, so I think Eire should be forced to make a choice about pressing claims of overlordship immediately after Scotland's cultural event (which Scotland would try to reject if it's Anglian, and probably also if it's Gaelic and strong enough to stand on its own). If they don't do so, or try and fail, the best they can hope for later is to seize the areas from Scotland which are still sympathetic to Eire, rather than to take over Scotland completely.


As for who's in charge of what, I can write various linking events for Scotland turning into Alba and so on. But I wouldn't know where to start with the internal events for Alba, so there are people better qualified to do that side of things, eg Ranika.

 

[unmerged(51398)]

Is serfdom a reflection of actual serfdom or does it also encompass slavery or debt bondage?

I believe it's serfdom in the sense of...serfdom. Slavery no longer existed in Gaelic territories (it'd been outlawed under Patrician law), but debt bondage was still there. That would account for not making it a 'totally free' society, but it was definitely a more free society than most; soldiers, for example, were paid substantially more by an Irish lord than a Norman one, but he wasn't actually indebted, in most cases, to the Irish lord. The way to shore up numbers was private debtors and esquires (every soldier generally had at least one servant, often the equivalent of a squire, but many also had private debtors and the like who fought for them in the ceitherne {warband} as ceithernacht {kerns}, providing greater numbers than what the chief, prince, or king actually paid for; this can be simulated by having Irish troops be closer to quantity than quality, to offset the cost increase of low serfdom).

I can help some one write events for Alban/Alba (which name do you wish to use? Both are technically valid depending on the region), but no good writing them myself. They'd probably face similar internal concerns that Eire would, though not likely as many, nor on such grand scale. If Scotland still exists, that can create quite a bag of events over how serious they wish to push their rights to control Scotland. As for a 'capitol' move, they may prefer to move it to a more Gaelic region, unless Lothian has an event where the culture converts to Gaelic; if not, probably to the highlands or Strathclyde; closer to Dunadd, more Gaels, easier to defend from the potentially disenchanted Inglis population. Alba would have a similar DP set up to Ireland, maybe a few little shifts, to account for its situation. Probably more defensive than offensive initially, since it'd be preparing to defend itself from reprisal from the Inglis Scots.

Alba, internally, would need to set up a government if it secedes. That has a few options. They can stick with a clan council, though empowered (how the Gaels operated under Anglicized kings), or they can elect a king from the more powerful clan heads; probably give them a few options with some DP slider shifts depending on who they choose, and increase centralization in all cases. That'd be from secession though, only. Conversion from Scotland and secession would both, early on, require a different set of events, before Alba more or less stabilizes, and then can be approached with more homogenized internal events (dealing with the judges, centralization issues, etc., which either path have to engage in).

 

[MattyG]

Ranika,

As for writing events, you don't need to code them up. I code swiftly these days, so what I will need for each event is the following:

Trigger, written in note form

eg. when Alba is at war with Eire or Scotland
or when Tom or Burt are the monarch but not Fred, and stability is 2 or greater

Name:
Description:
Date range, or specific date:

Actions, with results in note form

eg, causes 1 shift in innovative, lose troops in four provinces, cost 50 ducats
or, triggers next event, sleeps other event, makes alliance with Eire

I will likely also add other commands as I feel are appropriate.

Any notes will help, like, "This will need some follow up event(s) to have Fred return to power in 1480
or, from here if they chose action_a then each of the three northern provinces can start to turn gaelic.

Matty

 

[unmerged(51398)]

Alright, I'll put together a text file with some suggestions in that format. It'll probably be a bit less concise than you'd hope for, but I'll try my best. It likely won't be near enough events, but should hopefully at least set up a good direction to approach.