For King and Country

[fairline]

The Celts weren't attacking anyone. Forget the Celts. Harald Hadraade's Norweigan army (not really Vikings) attacked England from the North Sea and were defeated by the English King Harold I at Stamford Bridge.

Very shortly after William Duke of Normandy landed on the South Coast of England and met Harold's Army at the Battle of Hastings where Harold was killed.

William and Harald Hadraade both wanted to be king of England and weren't allies, although their very nearly coincident invasions at both ends of the country had much the same effect by forcing Harold to march North to defeat the Norweigans and then immediately south to take on William, whom he very nearly defeated. Had he succeeded, he would have gone down in history as one of the great monarchs of the age.

Cornwall is the South-Western-most tip of England which juts out in the sea above Brittany (NE France) and below S. W. Wales. By this time, although still predominantly Celtic, it was part of England. BTW, the Celts at this time weren't a nation but an ethnic grouping. The Scottish were and are Celts, as were/are the Irish, Welsh and French population (although the aristocracy of France were confusingly Germanic Franks, another legacy of the late/post-Roman Germanic migrations). The Normans (from Norse-men) were descended from Vikings who had invaded N. France.

The 'nobles' were all-important at this time, particularly in battle. The best part of Harold's army consisted of his aristocratic thegns who were the best equiped and trained fighters, while the bulk of the army was made up of the less effective 'fyrd' or peasant conscripts.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by fairline

Harald Hadraade ... saw a chance of usurping the English throne when Edward the Confessor died without an heir and it passed almost by default to Harold Godwinson.

IIRC, the English throne at this time was not hereditary. Harold Godwinson had no greater claim than William. A new king was selected from a group of people who had royal blood.

One of the crucial questions is whether Harold gave an oath to support William which he later broke. It was the breaking of this oath that gave Papal support to William's invasion.

Harold was the powerful man on the spot when Edward died. He organised a coup and would probably have got away with it if there had been no question about an oath to William. Of course the oath may have been obtained under duress and it may have been a fiction used as a pretext for the invasion.

But history is written by the winners, so Harold broke his oath and suffered the penalty. And the rest is history.

RJM at Sleeper's

[duke o' york]

If you want to begin the series after the Romans and before the arrival of the Normans (and have Civ 3), then I'd like to suggest looking at this thread from ages ago on CFC. Loads of work went into getting all the city names correct and the units, etc so it should be very useful to you. You could stretch history a little I suppose, and finish the scenario with the Norman invasion.

Even if you don't have Civ 3, then the thread should give you lots of useful info about the period.

[fairline]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers

...One of the crucial questions is whether Harold gave an oath to support William which he later broke. It was the breaking of this oath that gave Papal support to William's invasion.

Harold was the powerful man on the spot when Edward died. He organised a coup and would probably have got away with it if there had been no question about an oath to William. Of course the oath may have been obtained under duress and it may have been a fiction used as a pretext for the invasion.
RJM at Sleeper's

This was a situation engineered by William. Harold had been shipwrecked on the Norman Coast when Edward was still king and was effectively held captive by William who had Harold swear an oath of fealty to him. This didn't directly imply that Harold would support William's claim to the throne, but William used it as his excuse for usurping Harold when he became king. William argued that he was Harold's liege-lord under oath and therefore he should be subject to William's claim to the throne of England. Both men had been encouraged by Edward to believe that they were his desired heir; Harold's father Godwin had effectively ruled England and controlled Edward during the final part of the latter's reign.

Harald Hadrade's claim to the throne was the most tenuous of the three men: As king of Norway he had conquered Denmark after more than a decade of fighting. Three Danish king's (including the famous Canute) had ruled England and by extension, Harald argued that he, as Danish king by conquest, should follow that line.

[GoPostal]

Tostig only incited Harald Hardraade to invade.

Hardraade's claim was that he was descended from Canute, who ruled at c1000 (don't know my dates)

Harold, who succeded Edward the Confessor, around 1060, was appointed heir by Edward (traditionally, new kings were chosen by a council of priests and royal advisors)

William the Conqueror's claim was that Harold had sworn fealty to him when he was in Normandy, but it was alleged that this was under duress.

[fairline]

Originally posted by GoPostal
Tostig only incited Harald Hardraade to invade.

Hardraade's claim was that he was descended from Canute, who ruled at c1000 (don't know my dates)

Hadrade used the Danish king Canute's kingship of England as the basis of his claim as Hadrade had conquered Denmark. Hadrade was a Norweigan and most certainly wasn't descended from Canute. In fact, IIRC he wasn't even descended from from the King of Norway; the later gave him half his kingdom in recognition of his exploits and he inherited the rest on the King of Norway's death.

Harold, who succeded Edward the Confessor, around 1060, was appointed heir by Edward (traditionally, new kings were chosen by a council of priests and royal advisors)

I don't think this is the case, GoPostal. The throne was hereditary but Edward died without an heir. It was claimed that on his deathbed Edward made Harold his heir, just as William claimed that Edward had promised him the throne 10 years earlier IIRC.

William the Conqueror's claim was that Harold had sworn fealty to him when he was in Normandy, but it was alleged that this was under duress.

I think I said that above . I think it's safe to say it was under duress, as William held Harold a virtual captive, albeit well-kept one. The contentious part comes from Harold being tricked into swearing alleigance on a hidden relic which William revealed to Harold afterwards. William's claim came from Edward supposedly promising him the throne, and he asserted this superceeded Harold's claim as William was now his liege-lord.

The council of Eorls and Bishops you refer to (the Witan) was called to assess the merits of the various claims and decided that Harold should be king, I suspect largely because he was the man on the spot, as you said in an earlier post.

[fairline]

Originally posted by GoPostal
Tostig only incited Harald Hardraade to invade.

Tostig went first to William who sponsored an expedition by Tostig invade England. This ended in disaster and Tostig was driven away; he then tried his hand with Hadrade and accompanied him on his invasion of England.

[POTUS]

So, the Nobles will be one civ, allied with Harold Godwinson. He can research a tech called "Call-up Peasant Levies against ____" to get the nobles to fight that nation. He will only control London.

Meanwhile, the Normans and Norwegiens will invade and have the option of installing new nobles, triggering war against the Nobles.

[GoPostal]

I'm bowing out of this (I did it 8 years ago)

[POTUS]

Where I can I get it?

[duke o' york]

Can we stop fighting about who has got the more definitive version of British history, and try to come up with something to help this project get away from the (very early) planning stage?

I don't like the idea of Harold having to research techs to be able to declare war on people. The game would be far more easy to play if he and his nobles were a single civ, with more than just one city. If the civ needs allies to fight their enemies then they should have to ask and bribe, just like in any other game of Civ.
Otherwise, you'd have to have five different techs to be able to declare war on all of the other civs. That would just be infuriating, if you were researching one, and then wanted to declare war on someone else while your scientists were working away.

[GoPostal]

I don't think we are arguing, fairline knows more.

[fairline]

Don't believe that for a moment - I'm just a know-all. It's an annoying habit of mine

[GoPostal]

Oh, I am too, just not on this. I managed to link Witchcraft to Marilyn Monroe in English today in just 5 steps.

[curtsibling]

LOL!

What that says about JFK is best left unspoken!

So, POTUS, any pointers on what units you plan on, or is it too early for that?

[POTUS]

@duke o' york
While I agree to some degree with that, I want to show the power of Feudalism. If a king wasn't supported by his nobles, he was a lame duck.

Also, your goal is to kill your enemy kings. If your king is killed, you lose your claim to the throne, and are defeated. All invasions must be launched with the king, however.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by GoPostal
Oh, I am too, just not on this. I managed to link Witchcraft to Marilyn Monroe in English today in just 5 steps.

How about Witchcraft -> Crucible -> Arthur Miller -> Marilyn (or does that break some rule?)

RJM at Sleeper's

[duke o' york]

I'd be more impressed if you could make that link in French or Cantonese.

If you want to give the king a tenuous hold on power, then you could reduce the riot level in your cities, and maybe use events to disband certain units if your cities riot (is this possible?) Or you could have a city improvement called noble support (something more appropriate would be better) with the properties of a police station, which will cause a riot if lost/sold. You could force the game to sell this improvement off if certain factors were in place, so that when the king loses the support of his thanes, his grip on power declines and the citizens riot.

[GoPostal]

That's the one I had (like I said, in English (at school))

And what does that say about JFK (pls speak it)

[josefstalin]

sorry for the irrelevant comment, but it is a shame that Britain now is falling apart
Just the other day i was handed some pro-New Labour propoganda, from the POLICE! Men walk in fear in the streets, money is wasted at all levels, feminism plagues traditional values and patriotism is considered 'racist' as many flock to New Labour's capitalist marxist ideals (!)
But as we have done in the last 900 years, opression will be matched by resolve, might and courage of the british people, and Britain shall once more gain a sense of pride and dignity. We may look like a rich country on the outside, and our economy is currently sound, but the British way of life is being destroyed, and no one seems to care...

still, on a brighter note things can't get much worse

back to the scenarios
of course you could always have the happiness wonders linked with noble support, and as different happiness wonders are of different effectivity, then those kingdoms which rely chiefly on noble support should be given the most powerful happiness wonders.
Expiration dates naturally would be linked to some event
Also happiness changing technologies (communism, electronics) could change the effectiveness of improvements

[POTUS]

But the problem with the nobles was that they could effectively block any military action by not sending troops to support the offensive. The nobles choose the king. If they didn't like what he was doing, he would lose power and be defeated. On the other hand, if the king didn't call up the feudal levies, he would gain face in the nobles' eyes as couragous and daring, but could have his army destroyed in battle if he wasn't careful, as in at Hastings.

[Valuk]

Fairline: I am well aware of waht happened in british history, but there were a few raids and attempted invasions into England made by the Irish kings in the 10th and 11th century, not to metion the Corkish support for the Welsh princes that lasted well into the 12th century, until Ireland was invaded.
The Scots, on the other hand, harried England mercilessly until the mid-18th century, until the english genocide that wiped the Highlands clean of Celts.

[High_Flyer]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Hey dudes when i say British betayal i mean during the Greco-italian war of 40-41.

Prime minister Metaxas wanted to sign a treaty with the Germans prior to their invasion(we were already at war with the Italians), thus keeping Greece out of the great war, but that didn't suit well with Churchill's plans who wanted expansion of the war into the Balkans. So Metaxas was promptly assasinated by the English.

Are you joking???



Facts About Metaxas:

While King George and sections of the Greek political elite had anglophile tendencies, Greece was led by General Metaxas, a dictator who had far more in common with the Axis leaders than the western democracies.

After the ruling anti-royalist party was ousted in 1935, King George II was restored to the throne. He made the right-wing general Ioannis Metaxas prime minister. Under the pretext of preventing a communist takeover of the government, Metaxas made himself DICTATOR within nine months.

His grand vision was to create a Third Greek Civilization based on its glorious Ancient and Byzantine past, but what he actually created was more a Greek version of the Third Reich. He exiled or imprisoned opponents, banned trade unions and the KKE (Kommunistiko Komma Ellados, the Greek Communist Party), imposed press censorship, and created a secret police force and a fascist-style youth movement.

The Greeks did not fight the Fascist-Italians in some idealistic Hellenic struggle to "defend democracy", freedom of speech, or for a multi-party system... they fought them because - they INVADED Greece and they had plans to annex parts of Greece.

It was during his succesful leadership of the military operations against the Italians that Metaxas died. It was a mysterious death, and some rumours circulating at the time pointed out that he was in fact assassinated by either the Italian secret services or the British, the latter because he had refused the British to intervene in Greece. In fact, after his death the king replaced Metaxas with Alexander Koryzis, who agreed to allow British forces to enter Greek soil. But there is no real proof about how, and by whom, he was killed.

However, it seems more than likely that Metaxas was killed by an internal conspiracy of Greek political elites, who both hated Metaxas' dictatorial power and the fact that many in Metaxas's circle favoured a British intervention in helping repel the Axis.

This is similar to the "insiders" of Generals and others who tried to assassinate Hitler in 1944.

Once the Greek Government asked for British help, the British loyally offered substantial forces, thus endangering their own position in North Africa by doing so.

[POTUS]

Yeah, well you think that the US didn't enter the war because they were attacked.

[High_Flyer]

Originally posted by POTUS
Yeah, well you think that the US didn't enter the war because they were attacked.

To compare the Greek situation with the American one is like comparing apples and oranges.

The Greek Gov't at that time was a dictatorship with a closer affiliation with the Axis than with the Allies. The only reason it wound up on the side of the Allies is because Mussolini got greedy.

The USA was in WW2 and on the the side of the Allies in all but name and deed before Pearl Harbour, having instituted conscription in 1940 and having given huge amounts of material aid to Britain and the USSR, including taking over sections of Atlantic patrol.

Palaiologos had stated that the British both betrayed the Greeks AND killed their leader. Both statements are wrong.

[GoPostal]

Britain is not falling apart. What propaganda, but I do believe that. I don't walk in fear, and I am just 15, where do you live? Money is wasted, but what feminism plague, and Patriotism is not anti-immigration, please try to support your arguments. The British life is evolving, because immigrants enrich and diversify our culture.


And this may be a conspiracy, but it is true. Bush was not going to be elected without a significant forign relations success (he won't get one domestically), so he arranged the CIA to carry out 9/11. THey did, giving him the pretext for starting 2 wars, and keeping the population in fear by controlling the news to speak of terror alerts. Anyone read 1984?

Originally posted by josefstalin
sorry for the irrelevant comment, but it is a shame that Britain now is falling apart
Just the other day i was handed some pro-New Labour propoganda, from the POLICE! Men walk in fear in the streets, money is wasted at all levels, feminism plagues traditional values and patriotism is considered 'racist' as many flock to New Labour's capitalist marxist ideals (!)
But as we have done in the last 900 years, opression will be matched by resolve, might and courage of the british people, and Britain shall once more gain a sense of pride and dignity. We may look like a rich country on the outside, and our economy is currently sound, but the British way of life is being destroyed, and no one seems to care...

still, on a brighter note things can't get much worse

back to the scenarios
of course you could always have the happiness wonders linked with noble support, and as different happiness wonders are of different effectivity, then those kingdoms which rely chiefly on noble support should be given the most powerful happiness wonders.
Expiration dates naturally would be linked to some event
Also happiness changing technologies (communism, electronics) could change the effectiveness of improvements

[josefstalin]

i thought my intentionally vague references would prove a reminder
as they have not, i will explain my points
I actually live in the South-East, where the problems of economic decline and crime and are not so acute, as there is much wealth here to fall back on
but even parts of my good seaside city (Brighton & Hove City) are no go areas, and for those who have been to Brighton, i am not just talking about Whitehawk (which is a sprawling council housing area where buses dare not drive through). Many changes in the city are subtle. For example, recently, £10,000,000 was spent on 'reforming' the city museum to meet New Labour's requirements. The 'museum' was contemporized. Many period costume sections where replaced by modern clothing exhibits, and a 'gay and lesbian' section was added. I am not objected to homosexuality, but some of the displays are vulgar: 2 gays shown kissing on a television screen. This is seen by all members of the public, including innocent young children, who seemed to glare fixedly at it while it was showing. As a strong believer in the importance of marraige, that worries me. Still, this is just a minor concern, even though it cost £10,000,000 (in a city of 250,000 people, that's a lot of money)
The 'Liberal' elite who run this country are responsible for many awkward and unneccessary decisions: some local councils purging christmas celebrations 'to avoid offending religious minorities' (whom, as i have learnt, are not offended by Christian celebrations, why should they be?). I read in moderate newspapers that the north there is real racial tension and violence. More and more women go into workplaces, resulting in less, full, happy families, and a dangerously low birthrate. As more immigrants, yes, to a great extent there is mutual appreciation between them and us. But we must remember that at a certain point this country will be lacking in natives, if the current immigration rate continues. This is no good for anybody. All peoples and cultures have a right to self preservation, but the liberal elite are doing this to Britain itself.
The worst thing is that this is hard to believe. What to the government gain from all the bureaucracy, 'political correctness' and iron fist over the BBC?
And my comment about patriotism and racism. The Government, through their local councils, take down flying union jacks and are contributors to a decline in good natured patriotism. As a result the flag and other national symbols are being hijacked by thugs and racialists, and as a result normal people are often appreshensive about putting up their own flag. This is very unhealthy for the pride of a country.
Just listen in the news (preferably on radio 4) or look in a good newspaper, every week there will be examples of, what many people call 'Political Correctness Gone Mad'.
For exapmple, Robert Kilroy Silk wrote an article of anti-Arab sentiment. Anyone who has read the article will accept that he did not really get his facts right, and has apologised for his remarks. But the BBC think it is the 'public interest' that the 'racist' Kilroy is suspended (while an investigaton if carried out), ignoring the fact that Kilroy has a highly popular morning television program. I am not defending Kilroy's misled remarks, but I am criticizing the fact that the BBC always thinks they know what is best. The great majority of people i have talked to (including Arabs, as it happens) would rather the program stayed on, let bygones be bygones, etc.
The real racists are out there scattered across the country creating hell for even the most valuable immigrants, and burning

The racists, like the rest of the public, criticize politicall correctness. But the longer the politically correct new labour culture dominates, and the more damage it does to Britain's pride, the more dangerous and unpleasent the reaction will be. That would be a tradegy for this country, and this is why New Labour should be ousted now (in favour of the Tories)

Sorry about that folks
Anyway, back to Civ2...

[josefstalin]

Don't let's get happy proud Englishmen mixed up with the Ultra-Right racially obsessed fascists
Just because they both patriotic doesn't mean they're the same thing, as New Labour would have us believe

There will always be an England!

--------------------------------------------------------

Maybe i could make a modern civil war scenario, Labour versus Tories, with some Lib Dem Strongholds

:ana

[GoPostal]

Well, homosexuality is a large part of Brighton's culture these days (I am in Kent). But they should not exchange displays, they should add. I believe marriage is important, and I believe everyone should be equal. So there should be gay marriage too. But do you have a problem with a man and woman kissing on TV. If so, I think you are oversensitive to vulgarty, if not, I believe that is homophobic, because a straight or gay kiss is no different. The Christmas celebration thing is rediculous, I agreee. And Kilroy's article was clearly racist. Because of the BBC's legal obligation to be balanced, they had to suspend him. Also, Kilroy may have violated the law. Frankly, the loss of his program really is not a loss. And what party do you vote for?

Originally posted by josefstalin
i thought my intentionally vague references would prove a reminder
as they have not, i will explain my points
I actually live in the South-East, where the problems of economic decline and crime and are not so acute, as there is much wealth here to fall back on
but even parts of my good seaside city (Brighton & Hove City) are no go areas, and for those who have been to Brighton, i am not just talking about Whitehawk (which is a sprawling council housing area where buses dare not drive through). Many changes in the city are subtle. For example, recently, £10,000,000 was spent on 'reforming' the city museum to meet New Labour's requirements. The 'museum' was contemporized. Many period costume sections where replaced by modern clothing exhibits, and a 'gay and lesbian' section was added. I am not objected to homosexuality, but some of the displays are vulgar: 2 gays shown kissing on a television screen. This is seen by all members of the public, including innocent young children, who seemed to glare fixedly at it while it was showing. As a strong believer in the importance of marraige, that worries me. Still, this is just a minor concern, even though it cost £10,000,000 (in a city of 250,000 people, that's a lot of money)
The 'Liberal' elite who run this country are responsible for many awkward and unneccessary decisions: some local councils purging christmas celebrations 'to avoid offending religious minorities' (whom, as i have learnt, are not offended by Christian celebrations, why should they be?). I read in moderate newspapers that the north there is real racial tension and violence. More and more women go into workplaces, resulting in less, full, happy families, and a dangerously low birthrate. As more immigrants, yes, to a great extent there is mutual appreciation between them and us. But we must remember that at a certain point this country will be lacking in natives, if the current immigration rate continues. This is no good for anybody. All peoples and cultures have a right to self preservation, but the liberal elite are doing this to Britain itself.
The worst thing is that this is hard to believe. What to the government gain from all the bureaucracy, 'political correctness' and iron fist over the BBC?
And my comment about patriotism and racism. The Government, through their local councils, take down flying union jacks and are contributors to a decline in good natured patriotism. As a result the flag and other national symbols are being hijacked by thugs and racialists, and as a result normal people are often appreshensive about putting up their own flag. This is very unhealthy for the pride of a country.
Just listen in the news (preferably on radio 4) or look in a good newspaper, every week there will be examples of, what many people call 'Political Correctness Gone Mad'.
For exapmple, Robert Kilroy Silk wrote an article of anti-Arab sentiment. Anyone who has read the article will accept that he did not really get his facts right, and has apologised for his remarks. But the BBC think it is the 'public interest' that the 'racist' Kilroy is suspended (while an investigaton if carried out), ignoring the fact that Kilroy has a highly popular morning television program. I am not defending Kilroy's misled remarks, but I am criticizing the fact that the BBC always thinks they know what is best. The great majority of people i have talked to (including Arabs, as it happens) would rather the program stayed on, let bygones be bygones, etc.
The real racists are out there scattered across the country creating hell for even the most valuable immigrants, and burning

The racists, like the rest of the public, criticize politicall correctness. But the longer the politically correct new labour culture dominates, and the more damage it does to Britain's pride, the more dangerous and unpleasent the reaction will be. That would be a tradegy for this country, and this is why New Labour should be ousted now (in favour of the Tories)

Sorry about that folks
Anyway, back to Civ2...

[duke o' york]

I'm jumping ship before this thread is rightfully closed.

Discussing the proposed scenarios would have been nice, but it's all got too weird now.