Why 1066?

[Snall]

Then what makes you think you'd have to pay for his mercs? ...

 

[Pwyll]

Well seeing as they are unlikely to be free...they might just throw them in with Williams regular troops from Normandy much like EU2 when you pay for them you forget about them and they are absorbed into the regular army.

I am eager to see how they will represnt Norman England in 1066
How many facts they may fudge for game purposes.

 

[unmerged(5367)]

Originally posted by Pwyll
When exactly in 1066 will it start...Hastings was in October....and William only crowned on December 25th. Williams hold on England should be very insecure...how is he going to pay for mercenaires...I think I recall 1/3 of his army was made up of them.
The Welsh Princes who owed fealty to the English King Harold...would not swear to William and fought him. Can the Normans be thrown out of Britain?? Replaced with a Saxon, Danish, or even Celtic ruler??

Its after both invasions. hastings and stamford. (so no viking empire reborn )

This was to prevent/ensure 2 things.
* No vikings reborn (harald hardrade)
* No special rules for vassals goin a conquering on their own.

 

[unmerged(6975)]

Well why don't they start it in 1202, after all, the founding of the Lodi Delhi Sultanate is FAR more important then the Norman English .

The fact is, they have to start it sometime, and 1066 is as good a time as any. Quite frankly, most of the people who will buy this game will be more interested in England then Byzantium. Most English-speakers know more about Western European history then other parts of history.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Solmyr
A question somewhat related to the topic: What if the Byzantines manage to conquer the Holy Land in the initial stages of the game (as I suspect might happen if they are player-controlled)? Theoretically that should negate the need for Crusades altogether, since the Holy Land is controlled by Christians and Alexius Comnenus has no need to ask for Western aid. This was a failing of MTW - playing the Byzantines, you can crush the Turks and Fatimids easily enough and conquer the Holy Land, yet the Crusades still happen against you.

So in theory the Byzantines should control whether the Crusades happen at all. I'm wondering how all this is implemented in the game.

Since the Byzantine Emperor has no need of the western European Christians if he re-conquers the Holy Land, he may not soften his stance against the Pope as happened IRL and perhaps the Pope will call a crusade against the Orthodox Church.

Even if this does not come about, the Iberian crusade is already in full swing and there are always those pesky pagans in the Baltic area.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Originally posted by historycaesar
1066: The year the world changed....
Modern England would have been much different without the Normans, changing the course of history....

Different and BETTER

 

[unmerged(6160)]

Originally posted by snuggs
Different and BETTER

As the cover of one of my history books illustration: A saxon and a norman, the saxon says "We made England English!", the norman says "We made England perish!"

 

[unmerged(5367)]

Originally posted by Celt
The fact is, they have to start it sometime, and 1066 is as good a time as any. Quite frankly, most of the people who will buy this game will be more interested in England then Byzantium. Most English-speakers know more about Western European history then other parts of history.

I wouldnt be all that certain about that here.. you should see some of the discussions regarding what eastern roman empire should be called

Bloody 1000 post flame war