should I?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by MagyarCrusader
So prehaps '75 should be the starting year?

How much of Asia Minor did the Turks take from Manzikert? Was it all the way to Bosporus?

At the start, yes (there were some exclaves remaining, especially on the shores), but after I crusade and Aleksy's
reconquista, their posessities shrank to the interior only,
east to Filomenion city (still it was majority of the land).

Definitely Byzantium is better choice than Poland or Hungary, but I agree with Mister Jeszenka, some civ is needed to halt German expansion to the east, and Hungary isn't enough. Perhaps You could merge Poland and Hungary into 1 civ?

When it comes to Lithuania, yes, it was large - for a while-
but culturless and generally weak despite its size (it managed to take Ruthenian duchies only thanks to that they were weakened by Mongols). It was absorbed into Poland anyway.

[Chris 62]

If you start in 1075, you could have the Normans instead of England, they held large tracts of France, as well as parts of Greece.
You could call them the Angevin Kingdom.

France is really unimportant till the 100 year's war.

[tanelorn]

Norman conquest of Southern Italy
10th-
11th
Cent-
uries
A.D. The Norman Conquest of southern Italy begins. The first adventurers from the coast of Normandy, France, hire themselves out to the rival rulers of Benevento, Salerno, Naples, and Capua. As a reward they are given the city of Aversa. But as their numbers increase, the Normans band together to fight on their own.
1053-
1059
A.D. By this time Robert Guiscard (i.e. "the Wise", or, "Wily") has established a Norman kingdom in southern Italy. He conquers Calabria (the toe of the Italian peninsula), Benevento (1054 A.D.), and allies himself with Pope Nicholas II (r. 1059-1061), whom he protects from being dominated by Germanic rulers, and receives papal sanction to rule Calabria, Puglia (the heel of the Italian peninsula), and the island of Sicily. Robert sends his younger brother Roger to conquer Sicily, and himself sets out to conquer Puglia from the Byzantines.

The Normans have many classical texts translated from the Greek and Arabic into Latin. Together with the Greek texts that are collected in Byzantium and rediscovered in the libraries of the monasteries of Europe, these works will bring about a revolution both in Roman Catholic theology and in secular learning.

1071
A.D. Robert Guiscard captures Bari. With Puglia conquered, and with it Byzantium's rule in southern Italy ended, Robert next sets out to conquer Constantinople. But he is called back by Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073-1085) to defend the papacy against the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV.

1084
A.D. Robert Guiscard captures the city of Rome from Henry IV's army. But when the people of Rome revolt against Robert's army, Robert sacks and burns the city.
1060-
1091
A.D. Roger Guiscard's conquest of the island of Sicily from the Saracens. The Moslems of Sicily and southern Italy are Berbers from North Africa (the race of St. Augustine) and Spanish Moslems, a diverse people but they are all called Saracens ("People from the East") by the Italians.
1085-
1101
A.D. With the death of his brother Robert Guiscard, Roger becomes the ruler of Norman Italy or the "Two Sicilies" as it is called -- i.e. of the island of Sicily and the southern half of the Italian peninsula.
1101-
1154
A.D. During the reign of Roger II, a nephew of Robert Guiscard, Naples and Capua are added to the Norman Kingdom. Abruzzo is captured from the Holy Roman Emperors, and North Africa from Tripoli to Tunis is taken from the Saracens.
1130
A.D. Roger II changes his title from Count to King. The capital city of his "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies" is Palermo.
1194
A.D. Roger II's heirs, who have already lost the Norman's North African possessions, end Norman rule in southern Italy by surrendering the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies to the Holy Roman (i.e. German) Emperor Henry VI under the pretext that Henry has married a woman from the Norman court.

[tanelorn]

Here are 6 maps (1000, 1060, 1075, 1160, 1186, 1205 ad) of the eastern med, including the crusader states, up to the 4th crusade (1204).

[tanelorn]

Here is an "accurate" map of europe in 1075. Basically, at this stage Normans have comleted the subjugation of saxon England (1066)& are conquering Byzantine Italy (1071 too)- soon to land on Dyrrachium/Durazzo in modern day Albania, the Kievan Rus & the emirate of Cordoba have broken in several principalities.

[Valuk]

Sick joke? Hey, I'm not the nationalist here...
Maybe you should start in 1000 A.D. and then have the Byzantines degenerate by giving them a new technology in cca. 1055(the concept is well developed in the Komnenai, Fading Lights and Mamluks scenarios who were made by some Pole ) and then transmuting all the units from i.e. 3/3/1 to 1/0/1 via a Leonardo's workshop sort of wonder and then strenghtening them again by the time that Alexios came to power in 1081.
On the other hand you could include Hungary, but then you would have to strengthen the Uzek and Petcheneg tribesmen in modern-day Romania to prevent Hungary from spreading there, since it never had the power to do so.
OR, you could randomly create Petcheneg horsemen in Wallachia and then have a trigger that would create a Petcheneg horseman unit for each barbarian unit killed, either in Constintanople or in Buda depending on the side that killed it.

[Heresson]

It's also a matter of perspective, Poland becomes a major power at the very end of the middle ages, during the height of the period the Teutonic Knights pretty much vitimized Polish tribes for fun and profit.

(I didn't notice it earlier)
First of all, it's not a proper term when it comes to Poland at this time. Secondly, TK were brought there by Poles and were originally Polish vassals. Their might, which I would start from taking Gda?sk from Poland (1306 or so) to Grunwald battle (1410) was very short period, as well.
Poland was a major power also earlier; in the start of XI century, when it took Luzycze, Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, part of Prussia, subdueed Kiev for some time, fought succesively with the Empire and made alliance with Patzinaks and Byzantines. Later however pagan rebellion
and joint neighbour attack brought the period of Polish might to a temporary end.

I urge You to not treat the above map too seriously. There are some major - perhaps just to me - mistakes there.
Nothing to it, not all can be shown on the map.

[tanelorn]

Originally posted by Heresson
I urge You to not treat the above map too seriously. There are some major - perhaps just to me - mistakes there.
Nothing to it, not all can be shown on the map.

This is far too strong a statement, IMHO. Name them, if you don't mind. I have a different map in print form and I 'd like to do some crosschecking. I already noted the changes that are just about to take place, and that the situation in S.Italy is already different from what is shown.

[conmcb25]

I say keep the Poles or combine with Hungary, and yes Ill play the scenario.

[Heresson]

I'll send my comment about the map soon.
If I'll find enough time. I'm soon leaving for Warsaw, and though I have a computer, I still have no access to the net.

[Heresson]

Some;

1) It is after the defeat of Byzantines by Seldjuk Turks, several years after;
Why is sth Italy still in Byzantine hands?

2) Turks didn't get THAT much of Anatolia then. On the othe hand, in the times of Czaka,
they captured several Aegean islands. I don't remember the exact year, though

3) Serbs weren't any province of Byzantium at that time

4) Not to mention Bosnia

5) I have many doubts towards Croatia here

6) Armenians occupied Antioch only for a short while.
I didn't hear about them reaching through Cilician Gates to the center of Anatolia too.
There is a problem with Edessa as well, but nevermind.

7) Seldjuks never conquered western Georgia

8) It is wrong to show Seldjuk Turks as a monolith

9) I am not sure about Ruthenian state, but Halicz one should be stretched a bit more
to sth-east

10) eastern Pomerania belonged to Poland then

12) Slavic states is a wrong name, it should be Polabian states

13) Poland didn't hold Czechia and Luzycze at this time

14) Alans aren't a turkic tribe

15) baltic tribes stretch a bit too far in the Polish part

16) Estonians and Livs weren't Baltic tribes anyway

etc

[tanelorn]

Ok, mostly agree with you, comments:

1) Yes, its 4 years since the battle of Mantzikert, Armenia.
Southern Italy and Sicily are in Norman hands since 1971- the same year-, this is why I posted the Norman conquest timeline further up the thread.
2) Unfortunatelly, they did. It was Alexius Comnenus political skill (rather than military genius) that got the coasts back, 20 years later. He benefited from the first crusade, by obtaining a mock up "oath of fealty" by the crusading leaders, even from the same Normans he had repelled from Greece in the meantime. He marched his troops right behind them and secured the cities for Byzantium, until they refused to fight battles in his name and he found himself overstreched, thus he didn't press further to the interior. Central anatolia remained firmly in turkish hands until Manuel Comnenus, who reconquered much of it briefly, before the devastating defeat at Myriokefalon. Then, the interior was lost for good by the Byzantines.
3/4) Serbia (more towards modern day bosnia-hertzegovina at the time) was in and out of (nominal) vassalage to the Roman empire as shown in the previous six maps I included.
5) Croatia shifted between Hungary and Holy Roman Empire of the German nation
6) Agreeed. Also Edessa was more isolated, but had a large Armenian population and leadership, who welcomed the crusaders, when they arived.
7) Abkhazia?
8) Up to Arp-Aslan, yes they are under a central leadership (his). Shortly after Mantzikert, he dies, his agreement to withdraw never materialises and his recent conquests in Asia minor are divided between the Seldjuk states of Rum (Rome!), Konya (Iconion) and the Danishmed state centered at Kayseri (Caesaria). During this time Georgians regain their independence.
9) True.
10 & 13) Nope, I have two maps showing these borders. Give specific dates (year etc.)
11 There is no 11
12 Ok, this is a generalisaton because polabian is kind of alien term, at least for me. I take your word for it though.
14 Who said they are? They are of Persian/Parthian/Skythic stock and survive in the Caucasus to this day. Some migrated as far as Potugal during the Germanic invasions, the rest stayed as a buffer state between the Hunnic Khazars (who were advocates of Judaism) and the Roman & Persian/Arab/Turkic empires.
15 You are right.
16 Ok, overgeneralization.
I didn't paint this second map myself, I only used it as a reference point. It was done by some Croatian guy, I think. So there.
What etc? I really like this, lets hone our history skills!

[MagyarCrusader]

OK, I going to start writting up the rules.txt. Any suggestions for units? Remember, the civilizations are: English, French, Holy Roman Empire, Hungary, Poland, Christian States (mostly Byzantine), and Muslims.

[conmcb25]

Hussars (of Course for the Poles)

[MagyarCrusader]

Well, Hussars were developed in the 1400s (by Hungarians) well after this scenario ends. Any other suggestions?

[Heresson]

2) Unfortunatelly, they did. It was Alexius Comnenus political skill (rather than military genius) that got the coasts back, 20 years later. He benefited from the first crusade, by obtaining a mock up "oath of fealty" by the crusading leaders, even from the same Normans he had repelled from Greece in the meantime. He marched his troops right behind them and secured the cities for Byzantium, until they refused to fight battles in his name and he found himself overstreched, thus he didn't press further to the interior. Central anatolia remained firmly in turkish hands until Manuel Comnenus, who reconquered much of it briefly, before the devastating defeat at Myriokefalon. Then, the interior was lost for good by the Byzantines.

I know. But at this time, still many cities, inland, and especially at the shores, were in Byzantine hands.
Antiochia didn't fall until the start of Alexios' reign, in 1081 or so.

3/4) Serbia (more towards modern day bosnia-hertzegovina at the time) was in and out of (nominal) vassalage to the Roman empire as shown in the previous six maps I included.

As You say, nominal. And it is shown here as their province.

5) Croatia shifted between Hungary and Holy Roman Empire of the German nation

I just have some doubts towards its size. It seems so... small. But I'm not any specialist on that.

6) Agreeed. Also Edessa was more isolated, but had a large Armenian population and leadership, who welcomed the crusaders, when they arived.

The question with Edessa was such that it was captured by Turks, given a Turkish gouvernor, but when He died, Toros, an Armenian, started ruling the city.
I'm not quite sure if it still isn't the year when He wasn't yet ruling it.

7) Abkhazia?

No, a kingdom around Kutaisi.
I don't remember to be honest. I just remember that it was independant.

8) Up to Arp-Aslan, yes they are under a central leadership (his). Shortly after Mantzikert, he dies, his agreement to withdraw never materialises and his recent conquests in Asia minor are divided between the Seldjuk states of Rum (Rome!), Konya (Iconion) and the Danishmed state centered at Kayseri (Caesaria). During this time Georgians regain their independence.

I thought that Ikonion sultanate starts only after the fall of Nicea?

10 & 13) Nope, I have two maps showing these borders. Give specific dates (year etc.)

I don't remember exactly, but I am sure of what I say.
Czechia was part of Poland for only a couple of years at the start of XI century; Luzycze, but not that much of it, for a bit longer. eastern Pomorze stayed Polish up to the
XII century; I remember that W³adys³aw Herman ordered to burn all the cities in Poland, and Gdañsk was burned too. But his son had to reconquer it several years later, in second or third decade of XII century

14 Who said they are?

It comes out of the map

Sorry, haven't got time for more.

[tanelorn]

Originally posted by MagyarCrusader
Well, Hussars were developed in the 1400s (by Hungarians) well after this scenario ends. Any other suggestions?

Correct. The Polish "winged" lancers were the "Hussaria" shock cavalry, not the "Hussars" 14th century famous Hungarian light cavalry, or the "Guzars" Stephan Dushan's 13th c. Serbian light lancers.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by MagyarCrusader

Tech, you wanna help me with units? I'm not going to start working on this scenario until at least St Leo posts the Middle Age graphics thread for me to raid from.

Sure. Do you still have my email?

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by tanelorn

Correct. The Polish "winged" lancers were the "Hussaria" shock cavalry, not the "Hussars" 14th century famous Hungarian light cavalry, or the "Guzars" Stephan Dushan's 13th c. Serbian light lancers.

Well then at least very tough peasent type infantry for the Poles and probally some of the other eastern European nations as well. Hussars may not have been around in 1000. But I do know the Poles used Cavalry to harass the Tartars invading from the east. They lost miserably but at least they did something and eventually the Tartars didn't think it was worth the trouble to continue westward, so again the Poles saved western civilization. So some kind of cavalry is in order at leat IMHO.

Good luck with the scenario.

[conmcb25]

Any news on this?