1100, if something isn't radically changed so that the game can simulate the 1st crusade.
-
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.
If you start at 1100, then Jerusalem has already fallen. Granted that's about all that was conquered, but the target has been acquired. Would be an interesting scenario to start with, but I would still prefer 1054.
There was no schism in 1054:
"It is a common, but mistaken, view that the Roman and Byzantine churches entered into a state of permanent and irreconcilable schism in 1054. What did happen was a row between two churchmen that was symptomatic of growing cultural and ecclesiastical differences between the churches. These differences became pronounced during the eleventh century when advocates of papal supremacy emphasized the need for all Christians to acknowledge the primacy of papal authority and to conform to the practices of the Roman church. " - pg 32 of 'Crusades: The Illustrated History' (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24959434/Crusades-the-Illustrated-History)
"It is a common, but mistaken, view that the Roman and Byzantine churches entered into a state of permanent and irreconcilable schism in 1054. What did happen was a row between two churchmen that was symptomatic of growing cultural and ecclesiastical differences between the churches. These differences became pronounced during the eleventh century when advocates of papal supremacy emphasized the need for all Christians to acknowledge the primacy of papal authority and to conform to the practices of the Roman church. " - pg 32 of 'Crusades: The Illustrated History' (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24959434/Crusades-the-Illustrated-History)
511 with Chlodwig I.'s dead would be the perfect start for me.
Then any start date and the end should be 1517 (Start of the Reformation).
That would be 1000 years of fun for us
Then any start date and the end should be 1517 (Start of the Reformation).
That would be 1000 years of fun for us
what about 732 right after battle at Poitiers ?? ( most important battle in history of Europe or perhaps even world if you ask me )
or
1071 right after Byz defeat at Manzikert :]
or
1071 right after Byz defeat at Manzikert :]
Keep the current start dates.
I'd say add 1054. Whether or not you want to argue whether the Schism happened, this gives the chance to play an Anglo-Saxon English state and possibly keep it out of Norman hands.
No earlier - certainly not in the Carolinginian era. Several people have made excellent recommendations why not - my fear is Europe blobbing. CK already has enough trouble with a powerful HRE/Germany.
I think a EU3 style 'start at any date' would be ideal, though I understand the challenges with that. If not doable I'd want to see more starting dates including one for the Plague years.
I'd say add 1054. Whether or not you want to argue whether the Schism happened, this gives the chance to play an Anglo-Saxon English state and possibly keep it out of Norman hands.
No earlier - certainly not in the Carolinginian era. Several people have made excellent recommendations why not - my fear is Europe blobbing. CK already has enough trouble with a powerful HRE/Germany.
I think a EU3 style 'start at any date' would be ideal, though I understand the challenges with that. If not doable I'd want to see more starting dates including one for the Plague years.
While it is true that the hard date of 1054 is misrepresented, it does serve a historical purpose in that the mutual excommunications were issued, marking for historians the moment when both sides declared each other to be falling from orthodoxy.
Jerusalem having fallen is why I chose it. I think the game can not adequately represent the first crusade, and should therefore start after it has succeeded
edit: realistically, 1066 would probably be kept, so they don't waste all the research that they've done
1095, the start of the first crusade would be a good start date. In the end it was one of the major events in the middle-ages and I don't think crusades are represented well enough in CK. Of course, ultimately I would want the same start date system as EU has. It would be nice to play from the Ancient rome till the cold war, though .
.
Just a quick point about the "dark ages" not being "feudal":
The political structure of the Carolingian period had a much closer resemblence to what is depicted in CK than has been suggested above. A very similar system of vassalage to that of c. 1066 was in place in much of western Europe by the time Charlemagne came to the throne. You can extend this statement back further: the Lombards, Merovingians and Visigoths all had similar systems once they formed kingdoms. There is no problem extending CK back to c. 700-800 at least on these grounds. Earlier than that, in the migration period, the whole "tribal" system thing becomes more of an issue.
The main problem in extending the timeline, as has been said above, is the level of research required to cover this to the level present in CK is immense. This problem is even more accute the earlier you go: there are just about sufficient records to put forward a count for every county in 1066 (although there are obviously going to be exceptions and debate). Go back to 800 and you're hard pushed to find the names of relevent dukes/equivilent. Back much earlier and there are going to be gaps in your list of kings.
The political structure of the Carolingian period had a much closer resemblence to what is depicted in CK than has been suggested above. A very similar system of vassalage to that of c. 1066 was in place in much of western Europe by the time Charlemagne came to the throne. You can extend this statement back further: the Lombards, Merovingians and Visigoths all had similar systems once they formed kingdoms. There is no problem extending CK back to c. 700-800 at least on these grounds. Earlier than that, in the migration period, the whole "tribal" system thing becomes more of an issue.
The main problem in extending the timeline, as has been said above, is the level of research required to cover this to the level present in CK is immense. This problem is even more accute the earlier you go: there are just about sufficient records to put forward a count for every county in 1066 (although there are obviously going to be exceptions and debate). Go back to 800 and you're hard pushed to find the names of relevent dukes/equivilent. Back much earlier and there are going to be gaps in your list of kings.
I'd like 1066 start, but starting with Harold Godwinsons coronation. Then we can start the game with an ongoing battle to English throne between Harold, William and Harald of Norway.
I'm not that keen on going further in the past. I like the game to start during high middle ages so that all the familiar medieval stuff is already firmly rooted.
I'm not that keen on going further in the past. I like the game to start during high middle ages so that all the familiar medieval stuff is already firmly rooted.
Having recently read a book on the period up to 1000 AD, I would contend that feudalisation as represented in CK was only present in a few areas in 1066 (mainly Norman England, France and parts of Italy, with Christian Spain and Germany developing in that direction).
Most of Central and Eastern Europe was tribal and the structure of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire was significantly different.
Hence I would consider the appropriateness of the CK model to be diminishing rapidly at earlier dates.
My preference would be post-Manzikert (1071) so that the Byzantine Empire is appropriately weak and the Crusades fulfill their role as distracting/staving off the Muslim advance into south-east Europe.
I think starting with the 1st Crusade has a lot of merit, because this crusade differed in kind from the later ones:
1) it (generally) was not rulers but lesser people (2nd sons, etc)
2) it was (largely) co-ordinated, at least for a while
3) it was land based not sea borne
The current crusade model is a better match for the later crusades.
The other element that the CK engine seems to have difficulty reproducing is the challenge of Muslim resurgence and the conquest of south-east Europe by Muslims (Ottoman Turks). Instead there is the Mongol/Ilkhanid horde threat, made dangerous by operating under different rules (esp attrition).
Most of Central and Eastern Europe was tribal and the structure of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire was significantly different.
Hence I would consider the appropriateness of the CK model to be diminishing rapidly at earlier dates.
My preference would be post-Manzikert (1071) so that the Byzantine Empire is appropriately weak and the Crusades fulfill their role as distracting/staving off the Muslim advance into south-east Europe.
I think starting with the 1st Crusade has a lot of merit, because this crusade differed in kind from the later ones:
1) it (generally) was not rulers but lesser people (2nd sons, etc)
2) it was (largely) co-ordinated, at least for a while
3) it was land based not sea borne
The current crusade model is a better match for the later crusades.
The other element that the CK engine seems to have difficulty reproducing is the challenge of Muslim resurgence and the conquest of south-east Europe by Muslims (Ottoman Turks). Instead there is the Mongol/Ilkhanid horde threat, made dangerous by operating under different rules (esp attrition).
"I would contend that feudalisation as represented in CK was only present in a few areas in 1066 ... Most of Central and Eastern Europe was tribal and the structure of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire was significantly different.
Hence I would consider the appropriateness of the CK model to be diminishing rapidly at earlier dates."
First of all how do you define "feudalisation as represented in CK"? Basically I see it as the system of vassalage with counts/equivalent holding power under dukes/equivalent holding power under kings/equivialent. While this could certainly use some tweaking, this situation is demonstrably present in several areas of western Europe by c. 700. Granted, Eastern and Northern Europe were quite different- but similar systems of "tribal" rule existed in parts of the CK map until after 1453. Likewise, while the Byzantine and Caliphate governments did have significant differences to the governments of western europe prior to 1066, these were still in place in one form or another until 1453. Moreover, city republics such as Venice had a ruling system somewhat alien to "feudalism" and are present throughout the timeframe of CK. What I'm saying is that these non "feudal" governments are not unique to the period prior to 1066 and while the research for earlier start dates would be tricky, the engine could represent them reasonably well.
"I think starting with the 1st Crusade has a lot of merit, because this crusade differed in kind from the later ones...The current crusade model is a better match for the later crusades."
I agree that the crusade model needs an overhaul, especially if it is to remain the focus of the game. (Although I do have some issues with your analysis of why the 1st crusade was so different from later ones). I see two problems with starting in 1071 though:
1) the Byzantines will be very weak at this point and will either need some advantage (great ruler could do it, or maybe divisions amongst the Turks?) or will be steamrolled by the Seljuks in most games.
2) this start date is after the Saxon rebellion has been put down. I don't think you can underestimate the appeal of playing the period 1065-1071 for a lot of Brits/Americans. 1066 is often the only date people know about the period. Yes, this is an Anglo-centric consideration, but it's a valid one nontheless.
Maybe have 1071 as a date availiable to play from, but I think you still need to keep 1066 in there.
Hence I would consider the appropriateness of the CK model to be diminishing rapidly at earlier dates."
First of all how do you define "feudalisation as represented in CK"? Basically I see it as the system of vassalage with counts/equivalent holding power under dukes/equivalent holding power under kings/equivialent. While this could certainly use some tweaking, this situation is demonstrably present in several areas of western Europe by c. 700. Granted, Eastern and Northern Europe were quite different- but similar systems of "tribal" rule existed in parts of the CK map until after 1453. Likewise, while the Byzantine and Caliphate governments did have significant differences to the governments of western europe prior to 1066, these were still in place in one form or another until 1453. Moreover, city republics such as Venice had a ruling system somewhat alien to "feudalism" and are present throughout the timeframe of CK. What I'm saying is that these non "feudal" governments are not unique to the period prior to 1066 and while the research for earlier start dates would be tricky, the engine could represent them reasonably well.
"I think starting with the 1st Crusade has a lot of merit, because this crusade differed in kind from the later ones...The current crusade model is a better match for the later crusades."
I agree that the crusade model needs an overhaul, especially if it is to remain the focus of the game. (Although I do have some issues with your analysis of why the 1st crusade was so different from later ones). I see two problems with starting in 1071 though:
1) the Byzantines will be very weak at this point and will either need some advantage (great ruler could do it, or maybe divisions amongst the Turks?) or will be steamrolled by the Seljuks in most games.
2) this start date is after the Saxon rebellion has been put down. I don't think you can underestimate the appeal of playing the period 1065-1071 for a lot of Brits/Americans. 1066 is often the only date people know about the period. Yes, this is an Anglo-centric consideration, but it's a valid one nontheless.
Maybe have 1071 as a date availiable to play from, but I think you still need to keep 1066 in there.
I think people tend to get very hung up on how feudalism and Europe is portraid in CK now ... as opposed to what a new CK2 could accomplish.
IF PI wanted to move the dates back a few hundred years, they could, as their current engine can handle both feudal realms, republics and tribal nations (just look at EU Rome).
So it could be possible to play the baltic tribes or the republic of Venice.
But I doubt that will happen as it has been stated several times, that research would be tough, and there will probably be alot of guess-work involved if the date was set in the 8th. century.
IF PI wanted to move the dates back a few hundred years, they could, as their current engine can handle both feudal realms, republics and tribal nations (just look at EU Rome).
So it could be possible to play the baltic tribes or the republic of Venice.
But I doubt that will happen as it has been stated several times, that research would be tough, and there will probably be alot of guess-work involved if the date was set in the 8th. century.
Obviously, paradox will slave over CK2 for an absolute age so that the AI in CK2 will be perfect, and as such, it will perfectly emulate the crusades, fall of the byzantine empire and the eventual rise of muslim authority in asia minor and the balkans. (fingers crossed )
Honestly, I dont know why people are arguing over the start date because it will almost certainly be 1066. That said, I can foresee an expansion along the lines of NA and IN for EUIII that could bring the start date back to before the norman conquest of england etc.
Personally I would like to play the byzantine empire both before and after its dramatic fall (although some people would say that the loss of egypt and the holy land already constituted a fall from power). If there is no EUIII any start date system then I, along with most people, would like to see more scenarios', but not at the cost of historical detail (although, whether this is a realistic demand or not is another matter). I wouldn't rule out less scenarios' either though; it does seem like the paradox trend a la vicky2
)Honestly, I dont know why people are arguing over the start date because it will almost certainly be 1066. That said, I can foresee an expansion along the lines of NA and IN for EUIII that could bring the start date back to before the norman conquest of england etc.
Personally I would like to play the byzantine empire both before and after its dramatic fall (although some people would say that the loss of egypt and the holy land already constituted a fall from power). If there is no EUIII any start date system then I, along with most people, would like to see more scenarios', but not at the cost of historical detail (although, whether this is a realistic demand or not is another matter). I wouldn't rule out less scenarios' either though; it does seem like the paradox trend a la vicky2
From what I've seen in my first game of CK, and AARs I've read: Yes, it seems much more likely that the Muslims will conquer the Balkans than Asia Minor.