I would like to announce my plans for my new scenario for EMA. It begins in 843 (the year of the Treaty of Verdun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_verdun)) and ends in 1204 (the year of the Crusader capture of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_crusade)). This will act as a sort of continuation of my other scenario, The Dark Ages, which ended in 843.

My current list of civilizations and their leaders is:

1. Ummayads - Emir Abd ar-Rahman II
2. West Francia - Charles the Bald
3. Middle Francia - Emporer Lothair I
4. East Francia - Louis the German
5. England - Alfred the Great
6. Vikings - Ragnar Lodbrok
7. Kingdom of Leon-Castile - Ordono I
8. Abassids - Al-Mutawakkil
9. Great Moravia - Prince Rastislav
10. Bohemia - Borivoj I
11. Khazars - Khagan Tarkhan
12. Byzantium - Basil I
13. Bulgaria - Simeon I
14. Idrisids - Ali I
15. Kievan Rus - Prince Oleg
16. Scotland - Kenneth Mac Alpine
17. Armenia - Ashot I

Please note that not every leader or civilization was necessarily around at the year 843. I chose to include them because of their importance during the time the scenario takes place. For instance, Armenia would not gain independence from the Abbasids until about 861.

I have not been able to think of a good name for the scenario, so if anyone has a good idea please tell me.

The scenario will be released with whatever the new version is.

And here is the map of where the civilizations will be, roughly.

Looking good. As i like challenges, i'll surely try to play with Armenia, as it looks kinda squeezed between the big civs, heh :)

cool, but dont make the byzantines as weak in dark ages. they were rich AND poweful, until ofcourse Manzikert. Byzantines are cool, and they were undone by feuding (not unlike Hamlet), and loosing asia minor.

Please note that not every leader or civilization was necessarily around at the year 843. I chose to include them because of their importance during the time the scenario takes place. For instance, Armenia would not gain independence from the Abbasids until about 861.
Not exactly, Armenia was only nominally under Baghdad's control. The Bagratunis (like Ashot) has de facto control of Armenia, and the Battle of 40 around 861 ended all Arab attempts to take it back.

Looks good... would Neustria, Ostria (sic.), be better names for the Franklands... (I'm not certain what the central kingdom would be called, but I'm certain there are likely maps with the appropriate names on-line somewhere).

How about Charlemagne's Legacy for a title. Franko-centric, for certain, but nevertheless...

What about adding volga bulgaria and maybe the rustamid imamate?

^^^While I don't like the nature of that name in any way, I think it is quite appropriate given the starting date. If you don't mind me asking, what made you think of the sacking of constantinople as the ending date? Just curious is all

What about adding volga bulgaria and maybe the rustamid imamate?

^^^While I don't like the nature of that name in any way, I think it is quite appropriate given the starting date. If you don't mind me asking, what made you think of the sacking of constantinople as the ending date? Just curious is all
Volga Bulgaria is not in the mod, but the Rustamids sound interesting, where would they be?

I am questioning that end date. The Turks appear before that and fight Manzikert and destroy Armenia Proper and Armenian Cilicia is created within that period, so it is very difficult to do that. I suggest moving the end date to maybe 1045, the fall of Ani. It seems more appropriate since no nomads like the Turks appear during that period. Though historically they did fight and lose a battle to the Armenian king Gagik II in 1042, they never were able to penetrate by 1045. Yeah, so I think 1045 is better, and the next scenario you make could be 1080-1204, and then the one after could be from the Mongol arrival to 1453.

Volga Bulgaria is not in the mod, but the Rustamids sound interesting, where would they be?

I am questioning that end date. The Turks appear before that and fight Manzikert and destroy Armenia Proper and Armenian Cilicia is created within that period, so it is very difficult to do that. I suggest moving the end date to maybe 1045, the fall of Ani. It seems more appropriate since no nomads like the Turks appear during that period. Though historically they did fight and lose a battle to the Armenian king Gagik II in 1042, they never were able to penetrate by 1045. Yeah, so I think 1045 is better, and the next scenario you make could be 1080-1204, and then the one after could be from the Mongol arrival to 1453.

The Rustamids were imams who ruled in the central maghrib between the idrisids and the abbasids. Their capital was Tahert and the proper leader would be al-Wahhab.

I agree on the date because you're getting to a time period where there is a lot of changes by the 12th-13th centuries. Most of the civs don't exist any more by this time.

If I can count right adding the rustamids would make it 18 civs. :)

Well, I've taken into consideration a lot of your comments and such.

Firstly, I'm glad you all brought up the Turks. I've decided, similarly to what Drtad recommended, to have the scenario run from 843 until 1071 (the battle of Manzikert). The next scenario I'll make will run from 1071 until 1258 (the sacking of Baghdad), and the final scenario from 1258 until 1480 (Russia gains independence from the Tatars).

I don't plan on adding the Rustamids considering they were conquered by other Muslims not long after the start of the scenario.

I also don't plan on including Volga Bulgaria because they didn't gain their independence from the Khazars until 965, over halfway through the scenario.

On the other hand, I may include the Rustamids as a civilization meant to be destroyed early on by the Abbasids. What do you all think?

Thanks for everyone's contributions!

Instead of the Rustamids, I'd think that the Republic of Novgorod might be better. It could prevent the Kievans and the Khazars from growing too big, and will fill in that empty void in the north.

Well, I've taken into consideration a lot of your comments and such.

Firstly, I'm glad you all brought up the Turks. I've decided, similarly to what Drtad recommended, to have the scenario run from 843 until 1071 (the battle of Manzikert). The next scenario I'll make will run from 1071 until 1258 (the sacking of Baghdad), and the final scenario from 1258 until 1480 (Russia gains independence from the Tatars).

I don't plan on adding the Rustamids considering they were conquered by other Muslims not long after the start of the scenario.

I also don't plan on including Volga Bulgaria because they didn't gain their independence from the Khazars until 965, over halfway through the scenario.

On the other hand, I may include the Rustamids as a civilization meant to be destroyed early on by the Abbasids. What do you all think?

Thanks for everyone's contributions!

Actually the point at which you have the abbasids is its high point they did no more conquering except for cyprus and invasions of the greek islands. After 843 it all went down hill. The aghlabids gained control of ifriqiya in 860? and the samanids and saffarids shortly after in central asia and iran as well as the zaidids and qarmatians in arabia.

@ Drtad- Good point, however making the territory of there useless is good too.

I am a kind of new to the MOD and its scenarios, so I don’t know which version of the mod you meant this scenario to come with.

Also the most important Islamic faction in north-Africa in the period you chose is the Fatimids they have’t been there at the beginning that is sure, but they flourished during most of this period and began their decline right before the coming of the crusades, when they lost Jerusalem to the Turks (this should actually be named Seljuks). By any means the Abbasids for the most of this period had almost no control over north-Africa, and the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.

Good luck with your work (P.S. I liked your Dark Ages scenario a lot)

the fatimids were the egyptians.

Well, you can say so. The Fatimid dynasty moved its capital to Cairo which they built after conquering Egypt. Anyway they were much involved and more influential in the middle east in the main period of the scenario time frame.

Egypt was the only regional power left after the crusaders moved through syria and it was egypt that took back Jerusalem under Sal-Ah-Dinh (think i spelled it wrong).

Well, it is Salah-E-Deen, this might be the best spelling I can think of. Arabic names don’t lend themselves easily to be transliterated into European languages.

About the historical facts. Saladin (I will use the more English friendly name), belonged to a Kurdish family in the service of Emad El-Din Zinky and his son Nour El-Din Mahmoud. Those ruled a small independent state in current day Syria and started the counter attack against the crusaders. They managed in taking some of the territories the crusaders conquered earlier.
Due to a long sequence of events Saladin ended up with an uncle of his in Egypt leading a Syrian army that helped at different times different factions within the Fatimids court. In the end the uncle Sherkoh, was appointed as vizier. Dying shortly after that Saladin became the vizier of the Fatimid Caliph. He then ended the Fatimid family rule all together and became sultan of Egypt. He began next with consolidating a foot hold in Syria taking most of the land that belonged to his former master who was dead by then. Only then he turned his attention to the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem and other crusaders principalities. He managed in winning a rather decisive victory in Hiteen that allowed him to capture Jerusalem shortly after that

To clarfy things in north africa, the abbasids gave power to the aghlabids in north africa in the early 9th century where they ruled from tunisia on behalf of the abbasid caliph, from there in the mid 9th century the tulunids ruled as independent in egypt. The fatimids in 910 overthrew the aghlabids and ruled from tunisia and it wasn't until al-Muizz in 969 conquered egypt and rule from there. Salah al-Din was a zangid general who overthrew the fatimids and founded his own ayyubid dynasty.

What! Poland's not in!

http://i19.tinypic.com/4mmbmrt.png

And theres another map that i'll try to find sooner or later

and btw: This post is 75 % :joke:

they wernt there really, and if you dont like it, go make a scenerio based around them!

To clarfy things in north africa, the abbasids gave power to the aghlabids in north africa in the early 9th century where they ruled from tunisia on behalf of the abbasid caliph, from there in the mid 9th century the tulunids ruled as independent in egypt. The fatimids in 910 overthrew the aghlabids and ruled from tunisia and it wasn't until al-Muizz in 969 conquered egypt and rule from there. Salah al-Din was a zangid general who overthrew the fatimids and founded his own ayyubid dynasty.

This is quite correct. And accordingly I think the Fatimids are the ones whose starting and ending dates lye within the scenario’s time frame. Their rule actually extended into the eastern coast of the Mediterranean up to Syria in times.

ohcrap, since you apear to know alot about the middle east, why do alot of dynasty names apear to have more than 12 sylables and have alot of 'a' s?

I may answer you for I am Egyptian after all. 12 sylables! Not really this is some sort of exaggeration.

Many "A"s, especially in consequence which never occurs in proper English is because Arabic has more letters than English. Some of these can only be represented by A. also there is an A as a voile, and as a regular letter. So Aladdin is actually Ala’a E Din. The first A is the voile the second is Hamzza which is a stopping A and not elongated voile.

Ohcrapitsnico actually used the latin versions of ruling family names. Aghlabids are Al – Aghalibah, Fatimids are Al Fatimyeen, Abbasids are Al Abbasyeen (by the way the A in Abassyeen is not an A it is another Arabic letter that can’t be represented in English).

thanks, and yes i was exagerating.

Its simply a matter of language, dynastic names use the founder,usually, and add an id, like the Achaemenids from achaemenes, abbasids from abu al-abbas, genghisids from genghis.

You'll also notice there are latin versions of many muslims names like avicenna.:p :p :p :rolleyes:

Just an update for this scenario.

I'm basically finished with the scenario, all I have left to do is playtest. This means I can hopefully release the scenario sometime next week. For now, here's a screenshot of the map.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/61289/map1.JPG

So is eveything going to stay the same as designated in the first post? Or did you change something?

Nice map. Although why does it look like Armenia has a city noth of the Caspian Sea? Drtad, is that historicly correct? Also, do the franks start with the ability to make chevaleirs or or vassals?
(While you were gone I made a pedia entery for chevaliers in the civilopedia work thread. Use the one craig posted, he ran it through spell check)

Everything is the same as the first post, except the scenario ends at 1071.

The pink is actually the Khazars. I didn't notice the Armenians and Khazars used the same color, so I'll change the Khazars to gray. The Franks don't start with the ability to make Chevaillers, but can get Heraldry immediately or through trade. And I did include your civilopedia entry.

Nice map. Although why does it look like Armenia has a city noth of the Caspian Sea? Drtad, is that historicly correct?
No. Actually I can't see them on the map at all, perhaps it is my poor vision?;) They would be located in the Caucasus (as usual).

@Head Serf
Sounds like a good end date. I hope to see a late era perhaps starting in 1100 with the founding of the KOJ (Kingdom of Jerusalem).

Head Serf clarified that the khazars also had a pinl border color and that he would try and fix it. Head Serf, is east francias leader german or french?

I'll have the Armenians take their cities militarily on the first few turns from the Arabs. Their cities are a little lower on the map than usual, which is kind of confusing due to the way the map is drawn.

East Francia (Yellow on the map) will be essentially Germany, with a German leader and such.

Thats what I thought. Is east and centeral francia going to be both french leaders or is one going to be norman? (Sorry if im bothering you about the scenerio but this is my favorite time period. If im annoying you, tell me to shut up and i'll wait for the scenerio to come out.)

I'll have the Armenians take their cities militarily on the first few turns from the Arabs. Their cities are a little lower on the map than usual, which is kind of confusing due to the way the map is drawn.
Sounds like fun!:goodjob:

West Francia is French. Middle Francia is Italian. East Francia is German.

Thanks for clarifying that. Looks fun although is the Abbasid Sultanate going to be screwed by distance maintnence costs? It doesnt look as bad as the byzantines maintnence cost in dark ages although it still doesnt look nice.

Well, I'll have to test it to see. In "The Dark Ages", the Byzantines were supposed to get screwed over by the maintenence costs, it kind of represented the economic collapse they fell into by extending their military too far under Justinian. I'd prefer that the Arabs didn't get screwed in this one though, but I'll have to see.

Head Serf, ETA on when the scenerio is coming out? i really want to play it before school start and/or before i get BTS.

No, sorry, I don't. It's taking a lot longer than I thought to get everything together and balanced, plus I'm having less and less time to devote to it. Don't worry though, it'll be completed eventually.

The Kingdom of Scotland in 843, when it wasn't even called "Scotland" (it was still called Pictland until 900) did not include territory south of the river Forth. Some moderns historians will write that territory south of the forth was acquired in the early 11th or even in the 10th century, but this is based on shabby use of inaccurate later sources, and direct evidence reveals that Scotland's territory south of the Forth did not go beyond a small strip land between Stirling and Haddington even in the reign of Mael Coluim III (d. 1093). The kingdom in the reign of Alexander I (d. 1124) did not include much territory south of the Forth either, and it is not until the accession of David, earl by marriage to the daughter of Waltheof, earl of Northumberland, became king of Alba in 1124 that the continuous history of this territory in Scottish hands starts.

The screenshots above would doubtless have pleased the kings of Alba from the period, but believe me the English and then Anglo-Danish kingdom/earldom of Northumberland was certainly not in Scottish hands at that point. Flattering though it is, it is very inaccurate.

Wow, I cannot belive that the Serbia is not included in this mode?!?!?!
Serbia had state in Balkan from somwere from 860 to 1453 and was the most powerful nation in Balkan from 1050 - 1280 in Nemanjics dinasty (Kingdom, then Empire)
But all other is realy good, keep it up!