Hegemons: Building the World

Well, let me state the question here. I admittedly work from a European based perspective when it comes to the establishment of a global history. It is true that events in China did have an affect on Europe prior to the establishment of a global political system. I do not believe the reverse is true, though an argument I recently had on the Paradox forums is starting to cause me to lean towards an earlier inclusion of Persia and India. So, <nuke>, decisively prove to me that Europe had a major effect upon China prior to the 18th century. If you can, I'll happily include that region.
 
Europe may not had a major effect upon China, but China had upon Europe, for the Europeans started their explorations (that led to the discovery of America) in search for an other route for the Far East (because the silk road was under Muslim control).
 
About the vote, I vote Harald and want to join in the Arabian Peninsula region.
 
Yes, I'm well aware that China affected Europe, but that's a reason why I don't want to include China just yet. Therefore, it will only matter to me if it can be shown that Europe affected China prior to exploration and imperialism.
 
At the very least, you have Persian and Turkish invasions of India drastically altering the geopolitics of the North from the 10th century onwards. To influence the politics of China, well, over the steppe is more difficult, but China was one of the anchors of the Indian Ocean trade, the other being Arabia. You should look to expanding the game into the Indian Ocean as time goes on.

 
At the very least, you have Persian and Turkish invasions of India drastically altering the geopolitics of the North from the 10th century onwards. To influence the politics of China, well, over the steppe is more difficult, but China was one of the anchors of the Indian Ocean trade, the other being Arabia. You should look to expanding the game into the Indian Ocean as time goes on.


Well, it IS going to expand into that area. I'm just questioning on why China/India/Persia should be added NOW as opposed to later. My current plan is as follows:

1. Resolution of Mongol Invasions of Europe and the Middle East, would unlock Persia and India for guidance. (OTL, would unlock c. 1400, so 6 turns in)

2. Age of Exploration Launched would unlock West Africa, North America, Central America/Caribbean, and South America (these regions possibly subject to division later on; OTL would unlock 1500, so 8 turns in).

3. Dawn of Imperialism, meaning the beginning of heavy European trade and influences directly into Chinese, Korean, and Japanese ports would unlock the rest of the world. (OTL this would be c. 1750 or 1800, so 12 turns in)
 
I would say Musa's hajj alone is a good argument for making west africa pop up earlier than your current proposal, and East Asian contact with the other parts of the map would have started long before 1750 - maybe thats ok for Europe, but not when India and the Iranian plateau are in there, too.
 
I don't know that I agree so strongly that if William were to have failed taking England he would have been more successful in France - he spent the last part of his life fighting the king of France anyway, but in a TL without him in charge of England, the net difference as it seems to me is he has a smaller income and a less impressive resume to appeal to potential allies.

I would buy that a William without England would want to conquer something else, and wouldn't be interested in just consolidating what he had - but I don't think the military opposition he faced would have been at all different. William had continental enemies, and faced down internal revolts. Had he wasted his subjects' lives and money on a military failure in England (which would have been his first military defeat), his vassals may have actually been more confident in revolting, putting more pressure on him than OTL.

The only military difference I can imagine of note was, near the very last year or two of his life, there were the threats of a Danish invasion of England which he put his military on alert for - though King Cnut died and it never happened.

--

So I'd argue being served his first military defeat (and a big one, it was for all of England after all), he would be more interested in continental conflict for the creation of a personal empire. He would go on to fight the French monarch as in OTL, with probably as much success as OTL, so he may or may not have taken Brittany (he was thwarted when the French king stopped his siege of a significant Breton castle, his first OTL defeat), and may or may not have stopped various domestic contenders and rebels.

I have to do some more reading, but without an English holding on the continent, it seems to me that Angevin-French conflicts in this era wouldn't have occurred.
 
I believe EQ stated that the two contenders for the English throne that lose would die fighting for it
 
Am I allowed to request India/South Asia for whenever it gets unlocked?

On a tangent, IMHO this should be ideally unlocked now, since India and Persia had a great deal of interaction starting from even before 1066. (along with the rest of the Islamic world, really, but especially Persia; the Ghorids and the various Delhi Sultanates that ruled northern India between the 11th and 16th centuries were ruled by Iranians or Persianized Turks, and the Mughals after that were largely Persianized Mongols) Even if you're going to rule out East Asia for now (which I personally disagree with but you know more than I do so yeah), if you're including the Islamic world you might as well complete it and include South Asia.
 
Europe did trade with China via the silk road, the Middle East trading with China, and you had Islam coming into China as well. The Mongols were from that region so they at least should be a playable option. Further East, you have the Japanese having to contend with Europe's Christianity.

Even if you ignore that, I would lobby for China to be included because here we are making this diverse alternate history, and then we have it being "and China/Japan/Asia is completely the same". It makes the game incredibly Eurocentric and makes people not want to play in Asia if we have to just be "normal", instead of making our own backstory.

I would lobby for either a. allow for Asia to be opened, or either split the current groupings of regions, or allow for more than one player to go to those regions. It's just my suggestion, but I think it might make for a better game and timeline :)
 
Well it looks as though the Hardruler has triumphed and England once again rests under a Norse king. So, here&#8217;s the preliminary history of the Norse conquest of England and the related history that followed the victory in the areas affected by it. Namely this solely includes France, Scandinavia, and England. Assume all other regions are currently at the historical status quo for the period of 1066 to 1100. Just in case the first few paragraphs seem familiar, I did use the base Wikipedia article as a starting point for this one.

The full region list on the front page will be updated as soon as I can get started on generating it. For those interested, I&#8217;m using Crusader Kings 2 as the basis for the borders/starting map as it&#8217;s probably the easiest reference guide available. Attempts to find a good map on the internet have been less than helpful, so if anyone can do up a better map than me, I&#8217;d appreciate a good base.

As I&#8217;ve stated previously, this is a collaborative history building (within reason) and what is below is also functioning as the precursor for the way the typical update in this thread will be conducted. Your duties at this point are to read what has been wrote, and to provide criticism and commentary to what I&#8217;ve established as the base. This can be elaboration (in the form of stories or other development) upon what has been written, suggestions for revision (I reserve the right to ignore if you can&#8217;t back up your suggestion with context-relevant evidence), or additions of areas that I might have missed or neglected. The only thing that remains solidified as &#8220;canon&#8221; here is the deaths of William the Bastard and Harold Godwinson in battle. If you find anything from other areas to add, remember, they can only be added if you could decisively say that events would have been altered by the change in England&#8217;s king.

Lastly, please note that the first page now has the royal succession of the related nations in question. This too, is subject for revision based on any comments.

1066: The Norse Conquest of England

When King Edward died at the beginning of 1066, the lack of a clear heir led to a disputed succession in which several contenders laid claim to the throne of England. Edward's immediate successor was the Earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson, the richest and most powerful of the English aristocrats. Harold was elected king by the Witenagemot of England and crowned by the Archbishop of York, Ealdred, although Norman propaganda claimed the ceremony was performed by Stigand, the uncanonically elected Archbishop of Canterbury. Harold was immediately challenged by two powerful neighbouring rulers. Duke William claimed that he had been promised the throne by King Edward and that Harold had sworn agreement to this; King Harald III of Norway, commonly known as Harald Hardrada, also contested the succession. His claim to the throne was based on an agreement between his predecessor Magnus I of Norway and the earlier English king, Harthacnut, whereby if either died without heir, the other would inherit both England and Norway. William and Harald at once set about assembling troops and ships to invade England.

King Harald Hardrada invaded northern England in early September, leading a fleet of more than 300 ships carrying 15,000 men. Harald's army was further augmented by the forces of Tostig, who threw his support behind the Norwegian king's bid for the throne. Advancing on York, the Norwegians occupied the city after defeating a northern English army under Edwin and Morcar on 20 September at the Battle of Fulford. The two earls had rushed to engage the Norwegian forces before King Harold could arrive from the south. Although Harold Godwinson had married Edwin and Morcar's sister Ealdgyth, the two earls may have distrusted Harold and feared that the king would replace Morcar with Tostig Godwinson, the previously deposed ruler. The end result was that their forces were devastated and unable to participate in the rest of the campaigns of 1066, although the two earls survived the battle. After Harald&#8217;s victory, their worst fears were realized, as Tostig did replace them under the new king&#8217;s rule.

Hardrada moved on to York, which surrendered to him. After taking hostages from the leading men of the city, on 24 September the Norwegians moved east to the tiny village of Stamford Bridge. King Harold learned of the Norwegian invasion in mid-September and rushed north, gathering forces as he went. The royal forces took nine days to cover the distance from London to York, averaging almost 25 miles per day. At dawn on 25 September Harold's forces reached York, where he learned the location of the Norwegians. The English then marched on the invaders and planned to take them by surprise, but failed, finding the Norwegians alert and awaiting in ambush. The Battle of Stamford Bridge was a devastating defeat for the Anglo-Saxons, and the army was mauled horrifically, with the Norwegians comparatively unscathed. King Harold and most of his housecarls and thegns were killed in the battle, as were his brothers.

After his victory at Stamford Bridge, Harald was hastily proclaimed king by the Witenagemot, as he threatened to not come to the aid of the southern Anglo-Saxon lords against William the Bastard. The Normans crossed to England a few days after Harold's victory over the Norwegians, following the dispersal of Harold's naval force. They landed at Pevensey in Sussex on 28 September and erected a wooden castle at Hastings, from which they raided the surrounding area. This ensured supplies for the army, but at the same time did much to cement Anglo-Saxon support for Harald over the Normans.

Harald Hardrada, after defeating the forces of Harold, left Tostig in charge of quelling resistance in the north, but brought most of his army and allied Anglo-Saxon forces to the south. Although Harald attempted to surprise the Normans, William's scouts reported the Norwegian arrival to the duke. Harald took a defensive position at the top of Senlac Hill about 6 miles from William's castle at Hastings. The battle took place on 14 October 1066 and lasted all day. The numbers were severely weighted in Hardrada&#8217;s favor, despite William having both cavalry and infantry, including many archers, while Harald had a large number of foot soldiers and a similar number of archers. The Norwegian soldiers formed up as a shield wall along the ridge, and were so effective that William's army was thrown back with heavy casualties. Some of William's Breton troops panicked and fled, and some of the Norwegian troops pursued the fleeing Bretons. Norman cavalry then attacked and killed the pursuing troops, which is when an arrow from Norwegian lines struck William in the eye, leading to instantaneous death. The cavalry buckled and seeing this, the Norwegians rallied, and drove them from the field, shattering the Norman forces and securing England for Harald Hardrada in the process.

England and Norway After 1066

The first few years of King Harald&#8217;s rule were initially planned to be a return to Norway and the beginning of efforts to gain the throne of Denmark too. Raids by the sons of the Harold Godwinson continued to plague the western regions of England, but the Anglo-Saxons for the most part were fearfully unified under Norwegian rule. For the most part, excluding Northumberland and York, the Anglo-Saxon lords were allowed to retain their titles and positions under the Norwegian king. This helped prevent any significant rebellions, though a number of lords did cause problems throughout the first few years, politically speaking.

In Northumberland and York Tostig had returned with an iron fist, and viciously punished and retaliated against all those who had allegedly betrayed him in the past. Most of the remaining Anglo-Saxon nobility fled the north, and Tostig had to rely more and more upon Danish mercenaries, who were later granted land for their service. Eventually through brutal repression, he managed to maintain his authority, crushing any who dared rebel against him, and becoming known for his brutal ways and ruthlessness. For the most part, Harald gave Tostig a free hand, appreciating the stability in preparation for a war against Denmark. When Harald finally was able to return to Norway in 1070, he was forced to spend more time at home, as a new war broke out with the Swedes and he was forced to restore his authority after the long absence in England.

The invasion of England proved to be too taxing upon Harald&#8217;s resources, and the ensuing skirmishes against Sweden prevented him from ever being able to return to the island kingdom, spending most of his reign in Norway. He did however allow his young son, Olaf to remain in England as his representative, considering the possibility of granting him the kingdom of England while the elder son Magnus would receive Norway upon Harald&#8217;s death. Magnus&#8217; unexpected death prevented this plan, and Olaf inherited both kingdoms following his father&#8217;s death in 1074, and the Witenagemot confirmed this, though it was viciously resisted by Tostig Godwinson. Olaf initially intended upon returning to Norway, but he was betrayed by his father&#8217;s former ally. Tostig led a rebellion in northern England, backed by King Malcolm III of Scotland. Supported by Norwegian reinforcements and the Anglo-Saxon lords of the south, who hated and feared Tostig, the war that emerged lasted three years before the Scots were fought to a draw at the Battle of York. As Olaf&#8217;s army was incapable of restoring control to the northernmost parts of England, the Scots successfully managed to coerce the new King of England to accept an independent Northumberland under Tostig as the new earl. Tostig&#8217;s court remained predominantly Danish and Norwegian vassals, and he continued to claim the throne of England until his dying breath. Two years after he died in 1082, his son and successor swore himself as a vassal of King Malcom of Scotland, in order to invade what he viewed as an inevitable English invasion.

Olaf would only return to Norway once throughout his rule, during a new border conflict with Sweden in the late 1080s. It was viewed as politically expedient to remain in England, attempting to curry favor with a number of Anglo-Saxon lords, and he managed to subdue a number of attempts at rebellion before they could even get started. In fact, he began being viewed as a more English king than a Norwegian one. This apparent shift proved the undoing of his heir, Magnus, who was an illegitimate child, but had been mostly raised in England. Upon Olaf&#8217;s death in 1093, the Witenagemot recognized Magnus as the new king of England, but the lords of Norway resisted this, instead claiming that Haakon, cousin of King Magnus was the legitimate successor. When English forces were decisively defeated at the Battle of Røldal, Magnus was forced to withdraw back to England. Prior to 1100, he led several raids against southern Norway, but he was unable to muster enough forces to secure the throne.

France After 1066

William the Bastard&#8217;s defeat and death in England shattered Norman strength in northern France. The army that joined the would-be conqueror&#8217;s invasion were either killed in battle or captured by the Norwegians. During the winter of 1066 to 1067, many of the imprisoned Normans died of disease while the negotiations for ransom payment were still ongoing. The new Duke Richard of Normandy was soon bereft of both money and men, causing him to become increasingly reliant upon support from King Philip of France. Thankfully the two men had a cordial relationship, as Richard was constantly in Paris, seeking out continuing aid and providing political support against other rebellious vassals.

In 1069, Richard&#8217;s attempt to coerce Breton lords into compensating for paying the ransom to the Norwegians resulted in the outbreak of the Second Breton-Norman War, as Brittany refused and the Normans invaded. The much-weakened Normans were smashed by the Breton army in an open fight at Dol, and the Bretons invaded Normandy soon after. The war was brought to a stalemate when King Philip intervened on Duke Richard&#8217;s side, breaking a siege of one of the Norman castles. King Philip provided mediation for the dispute, and it resulted in the Bretons providing limited remuneration to the Normans, but at the same time Richard was forced to give up claims to Maine.

In the years that followed, France was plagued with substantial infighting and unrest among the nobility, all seeking to undermine Philip I. He was able to count on Duke Richard for support until his death in 1085, opening the door for the far worse rebellion that ensued afterward. The new duke of Normandy, Duke William II, claimed the title of Duke of Brittany and sought to add that to his own holdings. This was hotly opposed by Philip I, but the years of turmoil preceding the crisis led to William being able to assemble a substantial coalition of allies against the king of France. The bloody civil war that erupted emerged when William invaded Brittany in 1088 and smashed the Breton army in open battle. A number of lords failed to answer Philip I&#8217;s call to war, and the bloody conflict that emerged lasted until 1092, leaving France in ruins and near chaos.

When the smoke had cleared, Philip I was allowed to remain on the throne, but he was reduced to not much more than a figurehead, as the various nobles of France only provided the barest lip service to his position as King. In the north, Duke William secured the throne of Brittany becoming one of the most powerful vassals under the King of France. He deposed most of the Breton lords and replaced them with the various Normans who had supported his conquest, solidifying his rule over the local territories. The reorganization of the territories helped restore Normandy to prominence lost after the failed invasion of England, while greatly weakening the legitimacy and authority of the King of France, who remains a powerless icon, far overwhelmed in power and influence by the various lords who in theory are subservient to him.
 
Spoiler Europe in 1100 :


  • Norman independence somewhat comes out of nowhere. Yes, he's a very strong vassal, but the same could be said for France's Occitan regions, who remain under French rule. Having the nominal protection of a King and the rest of his realm, even if you're stronger than said king, is valuable.
  • Harald had previously tried to claim Denmark. Plans to try again were obviously scuppered when he died, but with England's resources it's certain he would try again. The Danes had matching claims on Norway and England that may also have come into play.
  • The Scottish King Malcolm, and his son and heir by Margaret of Wessex died in 1093 during a war with England. That didn't happen here.
  • If the Scots reached as far south as York, it's possible that they'd held control of the north for a good period of time. One of Malcolm's possible goals in fighting England was to push the border further south, and he may have been able to hold onto it in the peace.
 
  • Norman independence somewhat comes out of nowhere. Yes, he's a very strong vassal, but the same could be said for France's Occitan regions, who remain under French rule. Having the nominal protection of a King and the rest of his realm, even if you're stronger than said king, is valuable.
  • Harald had previously tried to claim Denmark. Plans to try again were obviously scuppered when he died, but with England's resources it's certain he would try again. The Danes had matching claims on Norway and England that may also have come into play.
  • The Scottish King Malcolm, and his son and heir by Margaret of Wessex died in 1093 during a war with England. That didn't happen here.
  • If the Scots reached as far south as York, it's possible that they'd held control of the north for a good period of time. One of Malcolm's possible goals in fighting England was to push the border further south, and he may have been able to hold onto it in the peace.

1. Yeah, I wasn't so sure about Norman independence when I wrote it in. I think I will change that unless someone else objects with better reasons in favor of independence.

2. I thought about this, but my main concern would have been that he would have had to control the Anglo-Saxons, and that he may not have been able to prepare quick enough for the war before his death. I'd like to hear from the masses before we press on with a Norwegian-Danish war.
 
Looks good so far, I'll have to think about it a bit.

Also, lol tostig. Guy never gets a break in any timeline ever.

re: Norwegian claims on Denmark - it makes sense for Harald to try to press claims, though your point about Harald trying to control the English lords and not being able to push them properly makes sense too. Its really up to the general consensus I guess.
 
Did the first couple of revisions, here's the summary:

1. Additional reason why Harald couldn't go after Denmark before his death, being a border war with the Swedes.

2. Tostig and the Scots manage a draw at the battle of York, allowing Tostig to become an independent Earl of Northumberland. His son swears fealty to the king of Scotland upon his death, giving the Scots a border further south.

3. Duke William II no longer becomes independent of the crown of France.
 
Now I'm worried that all of Northumbria going to Scotland swings the needle too far the other way, because losing a major chunk of England, and with a pretender to the throne still sitting on it, would be an existential threat to the Anglo-Norwegian Monarchy.
 
Since the Balkans are open, I wish to claim them.
 
Top Bottom