Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Scotland Debate

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(20077)

unmerged(20077)

Field Marshal
Sep 26, 2003
3.047
0
Visit site
There's been a proposal to detach Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, or even Yorkshire, Lancashire and Lincoln, from Scotland and instead make a separate country and a vassal of Scotland. Who's in favour and who's against?
If we decide to do this, I can perhaps do some monarchs and events for this new nation - and what will we call it?
 
I'm not entirely certain it's realistic to have Lancashire and Yorkshire together, but there is already a tag and graphics for York (as a carryover from the CK tag-expansion), if we want to use that.

Another option would be to revive Roman British symbolism and name it "Brittania" (perhaps confusing with Brittany though) or "Hadria"/"Hadriana" after the Emperor Hadrian (Hadrian's Wall is in that area), using a Roman motif for the graphics - perhaps red and gold with an imperial eagle?

(Note that I'm not suggesting a remnant Roman Britain, but rather a relatively recent revival of their symbolism, possibly formed by an alliance of Northern English (Saxon) lords who sided with Scotland in the fall of England as described in the existing histories.)
 
Sheridan said:
I'm not entirely certain it's realistic to have Lancashire and Yorkshire together, but there is already a tag and graphics for York (as a carryover from the CK tag-expansion), if we want to use that.

Another option would be to revive Roman British symbolism and name it "Brittania" (perhaps confusing with Brittany though) or "Hadria"/"Hadriana" after the Emperor Hadrian (Hadrian's Wall is in that area), using a Roman motif for the graphics - perhaps red and gold with an imperial eagle?

(Note that I'm not suggesting a remnant Roman Britain, but rather a relatively recent revival of their symbolism, possibly formed by an alliance of Northern English (Saxon) lords who sided with Scotland in the fall of England as described in the existing histories.)
Click to expand...

I think that we should add more cores and more leaders and make Scotland, and my ancestors, into a world super power that will rival the greatness of Rome. HAHAHAHAHa :D

Oh, sorry, had to slap myself back to reality there. I guess the only problem with this is that the Anglo-Saxons are not the people that lived there in Roman times. The Welsh, Britons, and other Gaelic peoples in southern England were the ones that lived there. Later on, the Anglo-Saxons invaded and slowly but sherry pushed them out, so I don't think Roman names would really fit.

I think that a 2 province vassal nation will be more then enough, and maybe take Anglo-Saxon culture away from Scotland (don't know why they have it now.) Obviously if they end up with most of England they can gain it back. Just my thoughts on it.
 
Northumbria could be one name, but there's NorthumberLAND as well - and that will still belongs to Scotland. The other name I mooted was "Norroy" a name used in heraldic offices for Northern England. We could, of course, just call it York.
I'd vote for letting Scotland keep Lancashire but making Yorks + Lincoln a 2 province vassal (I think 1 province minors are best avoided)
Incidentally why are Lothian and Northumberland "Gaelic"? It's historically nonsense and isn't necessary if Scotland has A-S culture anyway.
 
Didn't Lothian become anglo-saxonized after 1066? If so, then it would not be unreasonable to have it gaelic. Also it isn't that unreasonable to have gaelic spread south from Scotland into lands held by Scotland.
 
Byakhiam said:
Didn't Lothian become anglo-saxonized after 1066? If so, then it would not be unreasonable to have it gaelic. Also it isn't that unreasonable to have gaelic spread south from Scotland into lands held by Scotland.
Click to expand...
No, several centuries before that. It had been part of Northumbria and only passed to Scotland in the Viking period. After Malcolm Canmore (1054-96) married first a Norwegian and then an English wife, even the court of Scotland stopped speaking Gaelic - if the Scots had advanced south, of course, the court would have been even more full of English speakers.
 
The Impaler said:
I'd vote for letting Scotland keep Lancashire but making Yorks + Lincoln a 2 province vassal (I think 1 province minors are best avoided)
Click to expand...
Seconded. It's an interesting way to weaken Scotland, but removing all three provinces would be too much.
 
Yes, I think Yorksire+Lincoln will be enough. Have a vassal in the south to weaken Scotland. And remove anglosaxon culture from Scotland (they could possibly gain it in somwe event LATE in the game).
 
If we're trying to make Scotland weaker in Britain, then I think it's only fair we help them out a bit with Norway. At the moment, the UoK is liable to annex Norway early on, with the result that Scotland misses out on scandinavian culture and a whole load of events to do with the inheritance of Norway, even if it does later wrest control of the land from UoK. On the culture thing, I think Scotland should start with anglosaxon and get scandinavian (or possibly norwegian, if scandinavian is too big?) later, but they should soon get an event forcing them to choose between the two cultures.

Also, we should give Scotland proper quite low tax values - it's not exactly prime farmland! It has often been commented in vanilla that Scotland doesn't even deserve 4 provinces. The event where the Highlands become 'some of the richest farmlands in Europe' is just silly - an alternative would be to allow Scotland to forcibly 'Scottify' parts of England and practice aggressive land reform there at the cost of revolts etc.
 
Last edited:
Is there really an issue with Scotland? They don't have a CoT at the start for a long time, no?

Trying to make the AI survive against any nation is pretty pointless if you ask me, though, just think about 1419 France.;)
 
There isn't an issue with Scotland going on a WC by 1600 or anything, but the consensus seems to be that they find it too easy to boot Brittany and the Hansa out of Britain.
I wasn't aware they were supposed to inherit Norway... in games I've played Norway's been gone by 1500 anyway.
 
yourworstnightm said:
Yes, I think Yorksire+Lincoln will be enough. Have a vassal in the south to weaken Scotland. And remove anglosaxon culture from Scotland (they could possibly gain it in somwe event LATE in the game).
Click to expand...
Removing A-S culture would be all wrong... Northumberland and Lothian should have that culture rather than bizarrely being Gaelic.
Any chance the term "Gaelic" could be changed to "Celtic" as they did in AGCEEP...?
 
The Impaler said:
Removing A-S culture would be all wrong... Northumberland and Lothian should have that culture rather than bizarrely being Gaelic.
Any chance the term "Gaelic" could be changed to "Celtic" as they did in AGCEEP...?
Click to expand...

The culture of the lowlands certainly wasn't Gaelic, but it was (or so Scottish nationalists will argue :rolleyes: ) significantly different from that of, say, East Anglia. So how about we give Scotland its own culture and then allow it to gradually 'Scottify' certain areas (in the way that the British Isles have historically been Anglicised), rather than giving it a basket of important cultures (anglosaxon, gaelic, scandinavian) which some see as excessive? I believe a similar device is used in AGCEEP with 'lotharingian' culture, and has been suggested for the Crusaders ('levantine' culture) to avoid giving them arabic.
 
Why is anglosaxon culture seen as excessive? It covers less than a dozen provinces, nearly half of which fall within Scotland's start-game sphere of influence (whether or not we create the new vassal state). It's not like we're handing them a culture that covers 25 provinces they shouldn't have access to....

Lothian, being the capital of Scotland, should definitely not have a culture that the government itself does not, as well. So either it should stay gaelic/celtic or Scotland should get anglosaxon. (In my opinion, both, actually.)

Northumberland is a bit more of a gray area - either culture would probably be suitable. I would lean toward gaelic/celtic for it IF Scotland is not goign to have anglosaxon culture, simply to strengthen it slightly (removing the economic penealties on their 5th province).
 
The Impaler said:
This opens the proverbial can of worms - you're trying to say people in Northumberland are more unlike people in East Anglia or Kent than Catalans are from Portuguese or Danes from Norwegians?
Click to expand...

Of course not - in fact Norwegian culture isn't a bad idea, given that in Aberration they hate the Swedes and Danes, and come to think of it anglosaxon is only a medium-strength culture now there's no England to Anglicise the island. But people seemed insistent on depriving Scotland of anglosaxon, when of all the countries in the Aberrated Grand Campaign it has the best claim to the culture, and arguably should have it as primary culture, given that the ruling elite would have been lowlanders. I'd rather balance Scotland some other way (eg by making their provinces poorer) and leave them the culture and the starting provs, but taking away their cores on the Hansa and Brittany.
 
I agree about the culture. What about removing Scottish cores on everywhere but Scotland, as long as this new Northern English vassal still exists (if Scotland has cores on it, it will be very hard for them to be diplo-annexed as intended). Once this country no longer exists, Scotland gets Yorks and Lincs as cores by event, and perhaps an option to claim the rest of England.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back