The pre-1419 storyline

[Incompetent]

One thing that's absolutely fundamental if we want our storylines to be convincing is that they have to be consistent. In particular, we need to explain coherently what happened in the years leading up to 1419 to make the world so different, and I think the current storyline in Europe needs reviewing in places. Here's a quick summary of where some of Europe's Aberrated powers seem to have come from, as far as it can tell:

Kalmar: this is a historical entity, but in real life, it broke up with Sweden leaving the Union. In Abe, it's Norway that doesn't like the union, though for some reason they are keen on Scotland. But why do they prefer Scots to Swedes/Danes?

Finland: In the Abe world, Sweden is considerably weaker than real life. One symptom of this is that it never gets assertive enough to break away from Kalmar; another is that it never conquered Finland. As a result, the Finns picked up Christianity from the East.

The Teutonic Order: In this version of history, they battered Poland and completely conquered Lithuania. This isn't actually too far from history: Lithuania especially got attacked repeatedly by the Order, and they only finally gained the upper hand in 1410, when they allied with the Poles and defeated the aggressive Order at the Battle of Grunwald. But what if that battle had gone the other way? Alternatively, what if they'd never allied with Poland, or converted to Christianity, before being picked off by the crusaders?

The Hanseatic League: This is also a historical power. The difference is that while the real Hansa got weakened over time, the Abe one gets stronger and stronger. But how do they turn themselves into such a military power (something they never were in real life)?

Granada, Byzantium: These are powers from a bygone age, which somehow managed to survive in reasonable shape in the Abeverse. One question about Byzantium, though: what happened in the fourth crusade? What if we say that in Abe history, the fourth crusade actually got to the Holy Land? Byzantium in Abe isn't all that hostile to Catholics, and a non-diverted fourth crusade would help explain both this and the strength of the KoJ.

KoJ: Apparently, Jerusalem survived till 1419, and maintained the size it and the other crusader states had put together at their height. But how? Historically it only survived as long as it did because the Muslims left it alone, but clearly that's not how things are supposed to work in Abe.

Great Britain: In 1066, the competing claims to England's crown annihilated each other, causing the kingdom to collapse in the face of the mighty Scottish army. I find this storyline rather implausible. Can anyone give me a sensible explanation for the current split of Britain, or rather, come up with a more justifiable split of Britain in the first place?

Ireland: In real life, Ireland was ruled by dozens of different chieftains. But in Abe, it is united, and dramatically develops into Europe's greatest naval/colonial power. How did/does this happen? A few Portuguese refugees don't make an empire.

Ukraine: With a weak Poland and no Lithuania, Ukraine can get its independence. This is actually quite well handled, as the Ukraine player has to carve out a major power for himself, rather than being given one to start with.

Caliphate: In the Abeverse, the Caliphate held together. But doesn't this have profound implications for the whole Muslim world, not just the area around Baghdad? For example, would the Mamelukes have taken over Egypt?

Swabia: What happened to the Swiss Federation? It's not the sort of thing you can just inherit!

 

[unmerged(33565)]

Felt the need to comment on at least some of these,

One thing that's absolutely fundamental if we want our storylines to be convincing is that they have to be consistent. In particular, we need to explain coherently what happened in the years leading up to 1419 to make the world so different, and I think the current storyline in Europe needs reviewing in places. Here's a quick summary of where some of Europe's Aberrated powers seem to have come from, as far as it can tell:

Kalmar: this is a historical entity, but in real life, it broke up with Sweden leaving the Union. In Abe, it's Norway that doesn't like the union, though for some reason they are keen on Scotland. But why do they prefer Scots to Swedes/Danes?

The way I always had history is that the first of Norways colonies were in Great Britain, so that they had some nobles in Scotland. Somehow they look to them for protection, thats how I have always seen it.

Finland: In the Abe world, Sweden is considerably weaker than real life. One symptom of this is that it never gets assertive enough to break away from Kalmar; another is that it never conquered Finland. As a result, the Finns picked up Christianity from the East.

No Real problem with this, next...

The Teutonic Order: In this version of history, they battered Poland and completely conquered Lithuania. This isn't actually too far from history: Lithuania especially got attacked repeatedly by the Order, and they only finally gained the upper hand in 1410, when they allied with the Poles and defeated the aggressive Order at the Battle of Grunwald. But what if that battle had gone the other way? Alternatively, what if they'd never allied with Poland, or converted to Christianity, before being picked off by the crusaders?

Any real problem with the battle going the other way, so that poland ends up as the minor power...

The Hanseatic League: This is also a historical power. The difference is that while the real Hansa got weakened over time, the Abe one gets stronger and stronger. But how do they turn themselves into such a military power (something they never were in real life)?

Granada, Byzantium: These are powers from a bygone age, which somehow managed to survive in reasonable shape in the Abeverse. One question about Byzantium, though: what happened in the fourth crusade? What if we say that in Abe history, the fourth crusade actually got to the Holy Land? Byzantium in Abe isn't all that hostile to Catholics, and a non-diverted fourth crusade would help explain both this and the strength of the KoJ.

The history of abe really changed at the 4th crusade in that it was a failure....
Basicly, Byzantium was still strong enough to fight the armies of the catholics and wipe them out, but at a very bad cost.
What if, that crusade had gone to the holy land... (They could have gone to genona instede of Vensis...)
While this leaves the states of France and Germany battered, (no Kings..) The muslum world loses most of it leaders, setting it back at least a generation, if not more... leading to the life of the KOJ

KoJ: Apparently, Jerusalem survived till 1419, and maintained the size it and the other crusader states had put together at their height. But how? Historically it only survived as long as it did because the Muslims left it alone, but clearly that's not how things are supposed to work in Abe.

Great Britain: In 1066, the competing claims to England's crown annihilated each other, causing the kingdom to collapse in the face of the mighty Scottish army. I find this storyline rather implausible. Can anyone give me a sensible explanation for the current split of Britain, or rather, come up with a more justifiable split of Britain in the first place?

Ireland: In real life, Ireland was ruled by dozens of different chieftains. But in Abe, it is united, and dramatically develops into Europe's greatest naval/colonial power. How did/does this happen? A few Portuguese refugees don't make an empire.

Ukraine: With a weak Poland and no Lithuania, Ukraine can get its independence. This is actually quite well handled, as the Ukraine player has to carve out a major power for himself, rather than being given one to start with.

Caliphate: In the Abeverse, the Caliphate held together. But doesn't this have profound implications for the whole Muslim world, not just the area around Baghdad? For example, would the Mamelukes have taken over Egypt?

Swabia: What happened to the Swiss Federation? It's not the sort of thing you can just inherit!

I will leave Great Britain, I don't feel like dealing with that now...

I like Ukraine.. it sounds good to me

Caliphate- To me it sounds like it stoped the mongel invation, but at the same time lost its outer posetions. Basicly goveners in the outer/richer regions saw a chance to grap control and did. A couple of generations later the leaders are ready to grap back control.

Swabia- Really don't know anything about the swiss, so will not even try at this one

 

[yourworstnightm]

This is how I understand Abe history of the Brittish isles.
After William the Conqueror's sudden death in 1066, England still was without a king. This caused the northern lords to pledge allegiance and make an alliance with the scottish king. The combined armies of the northern lords and the scotts grew later such large, that the other lords of the island began to search for protection. The burghers in the London area started to symphatise with other free cities in Europe and later became a member of the Hanseatic League. The king of Wessex searched support from the powerful breton duke through several marriages, until the duchy of Brittany inherited the kingdom of Wessex. The kingdom of Wales( formerly kingdom of Gwynned, now united to a Welsh kingdom) made an alliance with the irish king, but later on the powerful irish king demanded that the welsh king had to become a vassal or the alliace would break, since the scottish threat still existed the welsh king accepted and becamwe an irish vassal, and this is where aberration begi.

 

[Incompetent]

This is how I understand Abe history of the Brittish isles.
After William the Conqueror's sudden death in 1066, England still was without a king. This caused the northern lords to pledge allegiance and make an alliance with the scottish king. The combined armies of the northern lords and the scotts grew later such large, that the other lords of the island began to search for protection. The burghers in the London area started to symphatise with other free cities in Europe and later became a member of the Hanseatic League. The king of Wessex searched support from the powerful breton duke through several marriages, until the duchy of Brittany inherited the kingdom of Wessex. The kingdom of Wales( formerly kingdom of Gwynned, now united to a Welsh kingdom) made an alliance with the irish king, but later on the powerful irish king demanded that the welsh king had to become a vassal or the alliace would break, since the scottish threat still existed the welsh king accepted and becamwe an irish vassal, and this is where aberration begi.

That's how it is now, but we have to sketch 350 years of Aberrated history. How about this:

Harald Hardrada of Norway was defeated at the battle of Stanford Bridge in 1066, but not killed. He retreated, and travelled to Scotland for support of his claims. The Scots agreed, on condition that should Harald become King of England, he should cede some disputed areas (Northumberland province) to Scotland.

When Harold Godwineson and William of Normandy were both killed at Hastings a few weeks later, Hardrada became the only realistic claimant to the Kindgom of England, and established himself as such, with the backing of Scotland. But the loyalty of southern England to the Norwegian dynasty was suspect at best, and when Harald's royal line later died out, sparking a succession crisis, the country was divided in whom should be king. The northerners mostly supported the claims of the King of Scotland, a distant cousin of the last Hardrada, while in the southwest, the powerful Earl of Wessex managed to get most of the nobles to rally behind his banner. The southeast, including London, was more inclined to neutrality, and was one of the few parts of England which saw peace during this period.

In the chaos that followed, neither the Scots nor the armies of Wessex could gain the upper hand, and after years of fighting, the two sides finally agreed a truce. There were now three Englands: one with its capital at York, one with its capital at Winchester, and one which was not so much a kingdom as a region which accepted the sovereignty of neither king, and which later came to be dominated by the politics of London.

A few decades later, it was clear that the divide had become permanent. Wessex was inherited by Brittany, though the local nobility have so far ensured that it hasn't been incorporated into the kingdom of Brittany. The southeast, now effectively the Republic of London, sought and gained membership of the Hanseatic League for security against the claims of the two Kings of England. The Kingdom of York remains, but is very much seen as secondary to Scotland by its kings.


What this means in 1419:
- the Hansa have London and Kent, and those two provinces as cores
- York has Yorkshire, Lancashire, Midlands and Lincoln, and cores over the rest of England, but is a vassal of Scotland.
- Wessex has Wessex, Bristol and Cornwall, has the same cores as York, and is a vassal of Brittany.
- no-one except York and Wessex has anglosaxon culture
- don't know about Wales; that's a separate matter.

Later in the 15th century, Scotland has an 'Act of Union' and incorporates York into Scotland, getting anglosaxon culture. At this point, they have a choice of whether or not to press their claims on the rest of England. If they do (default), this causes Wessex to be fully incorporated into Brittany (but Brittany doesn't get anglosaxon), and Scotland gets in a war against Brittany and the Hansa. If they lose the war, they have to drop their claims on London, Wessex etc.

Brittany inherits Wessex if (or when!) Scotland attacks it, but Brittany only gets cores on Wessex, Bristol and Cornwall. During the Reformation, Brittany itself has a mixture of Catholics and Protestants, and the country must decide which way it wants to go. (We can let players and the AI decide for themselves what religion they want, but we might give them an 'are you sure?' event for each choice, to give them one last chance to change their minds)

If Brittany goes Protestant, it alienates its French subjects and loses the culture, but wins friends across the Channel, gaining Anglosaxon culture. If Brittany's position in England is secure, it later gets the choice of moving its capital to Winchester and claiming the rest of England once more, or to focus on colonisation. Even if they do go for England, this Brittany is quite a strong colonial and naval power.

If Brittany stays Catholic, the status quo remains, though the people of Wessex are now unhappy with Breton rule, causing RR. Brittany later gets to assert itself more strongly in France, and most likely starts a messy struggle with Burgundy in which it tries to break their control of France both by war and by subtler means. This is much more likely to succeed if Burgundy has turned east. In any case, a Catholic Brittany is more likely to be land and military-oriented, but also with a flair for diplomatic shenanigans.

 

[unmerged(38537)]

--> Incompetent
Brittany... What about claims of Arthur Plantagenet (12th/13th century, more information in the "Mongol Empire Scenario" mod)? Could they connect with Your ideas, Kind Sir?

 

[ZhugeKongming]

The original cantons of the Swiss Confederation were ruled by the Habsburgs until the 14th century, when they managed to break free and than gradually expand. Abe just assumes the Habsburgs managed to hold on. Perhaps their difficulties in doing so explains their ahistorical lack of expansion? The Habsburgs, after all, were a very ambitious house that expanded quickly, compared to many other noble families.

 

[Incompetent]

--> Incompetent
Brittany... What about claims of Arthur Plantagenet (12th/13th century, more information in the "Mongol Empire Scenario" mod)? Could they connect with Your ideas, Kind Sir?

Possibly. But what claim would the Plantagenets have had if the Norman conquest hadn't happened?

 

[yourworstnightm]

What about Wales, as I understood there was already an idea about Wales being an irish vassal in the beginning, and I thought Midlands was transfred to the welsh/irish interrest zone. Also I thought the north english kingdom was supposed to be the Percies.

 

[unmerged(38537)]

Possibly. But what claim would the Plantagenets have had if the Norman conquest hadn't happened?

You are right. Rather no claims, then.

 

[unmerged(16159)]

What this means in 1419:
- the Hansa have London and Kent, and those two provinces as cores
- York has Yorkshire, Lancashire, Midlands and Lincoln, and cores over the rest of England, but is a vassal of Scotland.
- Wessex has Wessex, Bristol and Cornwall, has the same cores as York, and is a vassal of Brittany.
- no-one except York and Wessex has anglosaxon culture
- don't know about Wales; that's a separate matter.

Just hold off on the Hansa assumptions, I am about to post a largish reAberrated Hanseatic League, and will suggest they only take Anglia.

 

[Incompetent]

Just hold off on the Hansa assumptions, I am about to post a largish reAberrated Hanseatic League, and will suggest they only take Anglia.

Sure. Kent can go into the Breton sphere of influence, then. But I would suggest making London a province which the Hansa really want to hold onto, at least while they're still strong.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Or Kent could be an independent minor, which a fast major power can force annex and get some bb.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Just a note: I wrote a lot of the histories - particularly for Western and Central Europe's major powers - and did so in order to make them fit the province handout and event chains, most of which had already been established at that point. So it was more a matter of making the history fit the present than making the present plausibly historical.

In the West, I used two major jumping-off points - the Battle of Hastings and the Fourth Crusade.

In my version of Hastings, the English and Norman armies annihilated each other (at least to the point of both sides being unable to hold onto England) and the Northern English and Scottish lords banded together, pushing the South into the arms of outside allies that could assist in their protection (since the Southern English saw the Scots as barbarians at this point, and recall that this is a few generations before Wallace).

In my version of the Fourth Crusade, the Western powers *did* try to sack Constantinople, but were slaughtered by the Byzantine army. This resulted in the collapse of governments in France and Germany as their kings had been killed and the more powerful nobles wouldn't submit to a replacement. Thus Bavaria, Burgundy, Brittany, Hanseatic League, et al. as fully independent states and the absence of France and Germany in any form. It also plays into the absence of Venice (Venice profited greatly from the sacking) and the strength of Byzantium itself.

Given the option to tweek events and provinces to make it fit, there are areas where the histories could be improved, I've known that all along... I just didn't have that option the first time around. I would be more than willing to assist - or take over completely - a project to do just that.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

What about Wales, as I understood there was already an idea about Wales being an irish vassal in the beginning, and I thought Midlands was transfred to the welsh/irish interrest zone. Also I thought the north english kingdom was supposed to be the Percies.

This was partly my idea, being another person dissatisfied with the idea of Harold and William killing each other somehow making way for a Scottish invasion. The Aberration gets moved a lot further forward in history: until a few decades before the EU2 timeline, at which point:
The Peasants' Revolt in the 1380s succeeds! They kill the king but can't form a government of their own. After a brief period of confusion, a new king takes the throne, but the peasants and burgers who still control London don't want him - hence they appeal to the Hanseatic League.
Meanwhile, the Welsh enemy of England, Owain Glyndwr, puts his plan into action and in aberrated history it is a dramatic success with Welsh, Scots, Bretons and the Northern Percies combining to slice up England.
The Percies fall out with the Scots and are defeated by them. They have to accept increasing dependence on Scotland and become a vassal.
In the course of the game, the Welsh royal line will die out and they will be gradually absorbed by the Irish, although there's a chance they won't and a smaller chance they'll choose Brittany instead. Similarly, if Scotland doesn't diplo-annex the Percy duchy (can't remember if we decided on a name - Norroy was mentioned) there's a late event for them to be absorbed, too, or they can make Elizabeth Grand Duchess with a B choice.

 

[yourworstnightm]

What about little of both, William and Harold both dies, since that no one really has been able to hold on to the crown. Two kingdoms emerge, York and Wessex, both claiming the english throne (and the welsh are outside the conflict). Also the claim on the city of London is disputed, and both kingdoms have more than once tried to conquer it. Then the peasant revolts happen, and both kingdoms fall, in north the Percies upsurp the throne with scottish support, and in south the last one of the Wessex family dies and the throne goes to their relatives in Brittany. During this time Owain Glyndyr unite wales, and is named king of Wales, but pretty soon has to pledge allegiance to the irish to avoid conflict with Brittany. The city of London, which don't really belong to any of the kingdoms, and dominated by the burgers join the Hansa for better trade agreements.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

What about little of both, William and Harold both dies, since that no one really has been able to hold on to the crown. Two kingdoms emerge, York and Wessex, both claiming the english throne (and the welsh are outside the conflict). Also the claim on the city of London is disputed, and both kingdoms have more than once tried to conquer it. Then the peasant revolts happen, and both kingdoms fall, in north the Percies upsurp the throne with scottish support, and in south the last one of the Wessex family dies and the throne goes to their relatives in Brittany. During this time Owain Glyndyr unite wales, and is named king of Wales, but pretty soon has to pledge allegiance to the irish to avoid conflict with Brittany. The city of London, which don't really belong to any of the kingdoms, and dominated by the burgers join the Hansa for better trade agreements.

Doesn't work... I don't understand what this obession is everyone has with Wessex... who are the peasants revolting against? Where do the Percies come from if there's been no Norman conquest? What does Owain Glyndwr have to do if Wales isn't under England? What would be the point of him saving his country by giving it away? I don't like this rolling back to 1066 at all, it makes things too weird.

 

[yourworstnightm]

I'm a little bit concerned about the current aberrated history of Finland. In the current aberrated history Finland just become a powerful kingdom when the karelians convert to orthodoxy. What about for example Novgorod (which in the aberrated story is a member of the Hansa which is quite ok) the novgorodians had great influence on the karelians rl, and in abe it was probably they who converted them anyway. and why does Finland start with claims on Novgorod, why are their capital i Nyland if they are created by the karelians.

I think we have to revisit the finnish alternate history. I have a few suggestions.
Already in the early 12th century orthodx influences spread over Karelia by rus missionaries. The karelian chiefs converted to orthodoxy and pledged allegiance to the prince of Novgorod. Pretty soon however the karelian nobility were worried about the swedish landing on the western coast of Finland and the swedish victory over the finnic tribes in the west. When the tavasts asked for help against the swedish crusaders the karelians asked the prince of Novgorod of permission to intervene. The Novgorodians agreed to let the karelians help their pagan brethren in Tavastland if they in exchanged managed to make the tavsts accept missionaries from Novgorod in their realm. The karelian forces led by the christian noble Tapani Pohjnaherra managed to reach Tavastland before the swedish forces lead by marshall Birger Jarl and defeated them, pushing the swedish back to the western coast, where swedish reinforcements managed to hold a stand. Cheered as a liberator by the Tavasts, the chiefs of Tavastland agreed to Tapani Pohjanherra's demands to accept orthodox missionaries and Karelian overlordship. The Novgorodians, who now understood the power of Tapani, offered him the title prince of Karelia, and Tapani accepted the title, later on he was offered the title orince of Finland, when he started to expand northward. The principal of Finland remained a loyal vassal of the principal of Novgorod for ages. The capital was moved to the southern coat to gain more advantages in the trade of th Baltic sea, and the expansion northward was smooth, reaching the Northern sea in the 1360s. More important the finnic warriors was a great asset for the Nivgorodian princes in their quarrels first with the princes of Vladimir and later with the lithuanians and the mongols. However the greatest threat to the principal of Novgorod was within the state. Unlike rl the merchants had never really got any power and the prince and the nobility ruled with an iron fist. This caused the merchant revolts starting in 1392. The Hansa friendly merchants managed to get a hold on the city and the last prince of Novgorod died in an attempt to retake the city in august 1392. This made the finnish prince Ahti II, married to a younger sister of the dead prince to gather his armies. After a diplomatic deal with the swedish king Albrect of Mecklenburg (which had big problems with the domestic nobility), Ahti gathered his forces and marched towards Novgorod. At the battle of Novgorod in march 1393 Ahti took Novgorod and marche in as prince. However he soon learned that an hanseatic fleet was moving against the shores of Nyland so he left the city and moved back to Nyland. However the hanseatic scouts learned that and and sat sails for Novgorod instead, which already in june had been retaken by local merchants. The staus quo remained, but Ahti got support from both russian anf finnic nobility all around in the old principal of Novgorod. In july 1395 Ahti's forces met the forces of Hansa supported mercenaries in the bloody battle of Ingermanland, which ended in an vitory for Ahti, however, bad weather stopped Ahti from moving further that year. In 1397 Sweden, Denmark and Norway was united in the Kalmar Union by queen Margarethe and the rumors about a finnish - scandinavian alliance flourished. The Hansa was desperat for peace and in the threaty of Novgorod in december 1397, Ahti II was crowned king of Finland and gained the ugric dóminated territories of Olonets, Kola and Arkhangelsk. Also a lot of russian nobility fle dto Finland. However Ingermanland and Novgogrod was lost ot the Hanseatic League. Ahti however never dropped the claims on Ingermanland and Novgorod and still used the title prince of Novgorod in his title. Kalmar Union recognized the kingdom of Finland in 1403 and the order in 1411. Ahti started with assimilation campaign for the new russian nobility in his realm by ordering young finnic and russian unmarried nobility to marry. When Ahti died in 1408 he was inherite by his son Ahti III, the second king of Finland.

 

[Incompetent]

Doesn't work... I don't understand what this obession is everyone has with Wessex... who are the peasants revolting against? Where do the Percies come from if there's been no Norman conquest? What does Owain Glyndwr have to do if Wales isn't under England? What would be the point of him saving his country by giving it away? I don't like this rolling back to 1066 at all, it makes things too weird.

Agreed - it's difficult to imagine English history without the Norman conquest; it's easier if we move things to the Peasant Revolt. But as yourworstnightm says in the Scotland thread, this leaves questions about France - if the Capetians had died out at the time of the Fourth Crusade, wouldn't the Plantagenets have inherited, or at least had a better shot at ruling France than Brittany, Burgundy and Savoy?

Mind you, we are talking about King John here - perhaps he'd managed to piss off the Pope and the nobility so much that they simply refused to recognise his claim.

 

[yourworstnightm]

And maybe he didn't. maybe he owned half of France anyway, and would fuck up or abe history. But of course we could add some war that made the Plantagenets lose all their holdings in France earlier on to make John's claims weaker. (Then agian I have hard to see Plantagenets not trying to conquer France later on if we don't have a legitimate french king).

 

[Incompetent]

And maybe he didn't. maybe he owned half of France anyway, and would fuck up or abe history. But of course we could add some war that made the Plantagenets lose all their holdings in France earlier on to make John's claims weaker. (Then agian I have hard to see Plantagenets not trying to conquer France later on if we don't have a legitimate french king).

John would have wanted to. But John has gone down in history as an extremely unpopular figure, so it's not too implausbile that his own nobility would prevent him from pressing any claims, and a Papal decree on the subject would have further weakened his position.