Hegemons: Building the World

@Shadowbound: I am 100% in favor of an Islamic Iberia. Let's hope it can be justified.

@Everblack: What's the justification of Protestantism over Catholicism? Also, I'm looking more for the direct, short-term consequences for Europe from the period of 1066 - 1100 to help justify the A-S over the Norse.

EQandcivfanatic said:

@Shadowbound: I am 100% in favor of an Islamic Iberia. Let's hope it can be justified.

@Everblack: What's the justification of Protestantism over Catholicism? Also, I'm looking more for the direct, short-term consequences for Europe from the period of 1066 - 1100 to help justify the A-S over the Norse.

Click to expand...

Well Harold was excommunicated by by Pope Alexander II, who supported the Norman cause. Had Harold and his line remained on the throne there maybe a likelihood that the relationship between England and the Catholic Church may have strained to breaking point. There would be a chance the the Anglo-Saxons would undergo Protestant Reformation earlier but also there are some that believe that Saxon royals would have also lean towards Orthodox Christianity.

If Hadrada wins and conquers England, he's almost resurrected Cnut's North Sea Empire. With England as well as Norway's levies, Hadrada can then turn and press his claims on Denmark as well, creating what is essentially the most powerful state in the North.

Hadrada's dynastic union over the entire north is probably not going to last more than two generations, because projecting power across the North Sea and enforcing your authority is hard in 1100AD, but for the time being and perhaps significantly afterwards this means a way more powerful and influential Norway and Scandinavia.

Compare to OTL, where Scandinavia kind of became an afterthought to European politics in the Medieval ages. England, once free of the Norwegian yoke (because its going to happen sooner or later, an Anglo-Norwegian dynastic union is never going to be particularly long lasting. Hell, even Cnut's lasted what, 20 years?), now still has to worry about Norway and its designs on the Isles.

So if you want to see a more active Norway throughout the middle ages, vote for Hadrada.

Now, what will happen to England and France now that William the Conqueror is an amusing footnote in history (ok not really but you know what I mean)?

Norwegian rule over England will last maybe two generations, but its the repercussions here that matter. After the Norwegian dynasty is chased out, who's going to take over? Most certainly, it would be a local Saxon dynasty (another Godwinsson type restoration). The real interesting thing here is that the Norwegian rulers are still going to have their claims on England, and by god are they going to be more proactive about it. England will, likely for the next 200 years, be looking over its shoulder at the North Sea for when King Karl the Nth decides that what he really needs is to park his bum on the English throne again.

It's even possible (very unlikely, but possible) that we see a Hundred Years War type situation in England, if the Norwegians manage to keep enough English land after the inevitable Saxon rebellion turfs them off the throne or they manage to get and keep Scotland somehow.

Moving on, whoever wins out of Hadrada and Godwinnson, England doesn't have it's French territories any more. That's absolutely huge. For starters, any territory that England inherits on the continent will be limited in scope and English rulers are going to be more interested in forging dynastic ties with kingdoms in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or other powerbrokers in England itself (at least for the foreseeable Middle Ages).

Secondly, conquest without a powerful base in Normandy (and the parts of France that the Angevins successively conquer) is actually quite difficult. Hadrada (and his Saxon successors) and Godwinnson have little legitimacy, and without heavy amounts of intermarriage (as I claim above) they're not going to get massive dynastic claims and dynasties that they can use. While the whole thing about the Angevins not caring about England isn't really true (yes, Richard I spent all of nine months in England, but the others spent far far more) the Angevins did have a distinct continental focus when it came to conquests until Edward I (with the notable exception of Ireland, but that was partially conquered by Normans from France anyway).

Without the French lands and the wealth and soldiers they provide, England gets significantly weaker. It's hard to see an almost entirely English-ruled Ireland by 1300 without the Angevin lands. Perhaps Wales and Ireland stay independent of English rule longer, or are able to throw out their conquerors like Robert the Bruce and William Wallace do? Who knows.

If, like me, you think a fractured Great Britain is cool, you can see why I like his scenario. Then again, I'm taking Russia so its not really my call, but this is what I see as a very likely potential scenario in the long run.

Everblack said:

Well Harold was excommunicated by by Pope Alexander II, who supported the Norman cause. Had Harold and his line remained on the throne there maybe a likelihood that the relationship between England and the Catholic Church may have strained to breaking point. There would be a chance the the Anglo-Saxons would undergo Protestant Reformation earlier but also there are some that believe that Saxon royals would have also lean towards Orthodox Christianity.

Click to expand...

doubtful, Kings got excommunicated with surprising regularity by the papacy without reformations springing forth. Indeed even Emperors got excommunicated without schism resulting, as the famous incident known as the walk to Canossa indicates.

Oh, and at this point in time there has yet to be a formal schism between the eastern and western churches. The Byzantine East and Latin west still recognise each-other at this point although all the theological tensions are already in the mix (although there's no way England would go orthodox, the cultural difference represented in the schism between byzantine eastern culture and western culture makes that an absurd potentiality.).

@Grandkhan: Good thoughts so far! That's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. It is my opinion that whether Hardruler or Godwinson win, the situation in France will be pretty much the same. The only difference between the two scenarios would be the status of England and Norway (and possibly Denmark). A couple of thoughts in addition to your statements, which I'm interested to hear opinions on:

1. OTL, the Norman conquerors granted a number of their own with various titles throughout England, rewarding those who backed William. If Hardruler took over England, the question would be whether he left the existing aristocracy intact or replaced various rulers with his own supporters like William. If the former, then I believe your assessment of a A-S rebellion is pretty reasonable. If the A-S were displaced by Nordic rulers and others, I'd argue that a direct rebellion becomes less likely, and a simple splitting of the realm by a later ruler would be more likely, though probably not before 1100. Thoughts?

2. As for France, you mentioned that it was huge that England would not have French territories, and I believe you are 100% correct in that assessment, but could use some elaboration. If defeated in England, it does not seem impossible to me that William and his heirs could focus more upon the internal politics of France, leading to even greater instability, and an even weaker central monarchy. Not sure what the end result would be, but considering the instability that France had OTL between 1066 and 1100, it seems quite likely that it would only be worse if William didn't have affairs in England to occupy himself.

Norwegian conquest would have been radically different. Harold's claim on the throne came through Cnut the Great, who was his uncle: the Saxons and Danes were much closer than the Normans and Saxons were. There wouldn't have been as much need to replace the established nobility as William found, as Harald's rule would've been lighter (due to the distance from Norway) and more acceptable (due to strong cultural ties with the Norse). It's likely that, with Harald's death or more likely the death of his son, England and Norway would have naturally split among his heirs, instead of by a violent rebellion.

Further, it's also pointing out that Harald was definitely on the eastern side of the East-West schism. He'd lived most of his life in Orthodox regions, and brought priests with him from there when he became King of Norway. Obviously he didn't have much success at making that stick, though.

Shadowbound said:

Norwegian conquest would have been radically different. Harold's claim on the throne came through Cnut the Great, who was his uncle: the Saxons and Danes were much closer than the Normans and Saxons were. There wouldn't have been as much need to replace the established nobility as William found, as Harald's rule would've been lighter (due to the distance from Norway) and more acceptable (due to strong cultural ties with the Norse). It's likely that, with Harald's death or more likely the death of his son, England and Norway would have naturally split among his heirs, instead of by a violent rebellion.

Further, it's also pointing out that Harald was definitely on the eastern side of the East-West schism. He'd lived most of his life in Orthodox regions, and brought priests with him from there when he became King of Norway. Obviously he didn't have much success at making that stick, though.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess the question could arise here, could he have made it stick if he had not died in 1066? It's not inconceivable that he could have lived another 10-20 years if he had been victorious (acknowledging the possibility of death in later wars). So really, for those of you who've studied the region more in depth, could Orthodox Christianity feasibly have taken root in Norway and/or England under the reign of Harald, if he had additional time?

lurker's comment: One thing to consider is that the Normans were adventurers first and foremost, and that their conquest of England was but one of many adventures that also included conquests in Italy and the Holy Land. And losing at Hastings wouldn't have stopped them.

If Norman ambitions were frustrated in England, it would make for an interesting and less boring PoD to have William's successors and retainers attempt to carve out new Norman kingdoms or lordships in other, historically novel areas, and succeed.

Everblack said:

Also they said the Angle-Saxons would have move toward Protestant instead of Christianity.

Click to expand...

That last part seems odd considering Protestantism didn't exist yet.

Why I favor an Anglo-Saxon England:

An England without interference from other powers (at least until later) would be more of its own unique culture as opposed to a hybrid of cultures. We've seen England with French influence. I believe at least a few NESes have been done with England with Scandinavian influence and even considering that, we already know what Scandinavian countries are like. A Scandinavian England is just another Scandinavian state. A thoroughly Anglo-Saxon is just Anglo-Saxon. What does that entail?

I vote for Godwinson for King of England. I'd also be interested in reserving China for the future.

I actually completely mindblanked and forgot about a peaceful separation. I guess I kind of automatically filed it in with rebellion somehow and forgot about that possibility. I'm not 100% sure how Norwegian succession works, but if its sufficiently similar to the English (and English aristocrats are content enough) then it might be quite a bit longer before England breaks away, since you've got to wait for a divergence in dynastic law.

Harald would pretty much have to keep the local English nobility in power, because a transplanted Norse nobility would last no time at all without Hadrada leading a Norwegian army back and forth across the North Sea. William could do it because Normandy's a short trip away and he didn't have three kingoms to worry about, but Hadrada has to worry about England, Norway, and probably later Denmark.

At this stage, there's two potential futures regarding England.
1. Within maybe 200 years, there is a succession in divergence and an independent Kingdom arises in England under the house of Hadrada.
2. Hadrada (or his son, if the Union survives Hadrada's death) die, and the English aristocracy put their own candidate on the throne in defiance of whoever rules in Bergen. An Anglo-Saxon nobility in England actually makes this more likely - they don't have any particular reason to be loyal to the Norwegians or their import king, and they've been running things on their own for the last two generations anyway, so what do they need the King in Norway for?

Hadrada keeping the Anglo-Saxon nobility around actually makes an earlier split more likely, because the first hint of a King who takes a little more interest in English affairs than Hadrada and the Saxons will cut their losses and install one of their own on the throne in London. On the other hand, if the Norwegians are light enough rulers then there might be a good 200 years before England is an independent Kingdom again.

Also, another interesting possibility regarding a non-French ruler in England is that serfdom is significantly delayed in England, and the institution is generally weaker. As far as I am aware, serfdom only ever really took off after the Normans, though I'm not sure if thats a direct result or it was on its way anyway. Serfdom in Scandinavia was never a thing, so if Hadrada takes over we might not see serfs in England until far, far later.

re: France
I don't know nearly as much about France, but a William with his hands free and has just been spurned in his attempt at England is definitely going to look towards continental affairs a little closely. William was very warlike and aggressive by nature - he spent most of his childhood at war and never really stopped trying to make war. According to Wiki, King Phillip was about 16 at the time of the Battle of Hastings and spent pretty much all his reign trying to put down vassal rebellions, so that's a real opportunity for William.

I can definitely see William or a competent successor seizing Britanny for the Duchy of Normandy (which he tried to do historically after he conquered England), and generally making trouble. While France most definitely won't collapse per see, the central monarchy will be much weaker and France will probably stay decentralised for a lot longer. Philip's son Louis was pretty much the closest thing France had to a strong ruler since the Carolingians, and a lot of that was due to his father restoring a modicum of authority in the French throne, so without that you see a much weaker, destabilised France for much of the 12th and possibly 13th century.

ED: also, i feel its necessary to point out that there were actually things going on in Asia prior to and completely independent of European contact and that not modelling that is really strange.

Yes, my first choice actually would've been India, not Iberia.

I vote Harald Hardrada.

What are the possibilities of England as an entity dissolving into smaller petty kingdoms as a result of either continued Godwinson rule or after a secession from norway?

pretty low at this point I would think, England has been united for quite some time by 1066.

So, this is productive so far, and I'm very interested in some of the ideas that have been presented. Either tomorrow or this afternoon I'll try and get a preliminary draft of the 1,100 start posted, with the ideas incorporated here, assuming that the Hardruler keeps in the lead as he seems to be. For the purposes of the timeline, I'm assuming that the two losers of the vote die in battle, as they did historically.

In other news, I figured I'd show you all what we're working towards. While the ruleset for the 20th century stage does not yet exist in any organized format, I DO, however, have sample stats, and will explain why "Hegemons" is the title. The history of the twentieth century is most accurately described as the extended history of the great powers and superpowers that existed within it. The economies and politics of the majority of nations that existed in the twentieth century revolved around the actions and policies of a handful of larger powers. Therefore, unlike previous NESes of mine, I will no longer be allowing ALL nations on the map to be available to play. Only great and regional powers will be available to play at any given time. All others will be NPCs.

Playable Nation Stats

Nation Name: Player Name
Government: Head of State (Ideology)/Ruling Party (Ideology)
Capital:
Economic Points: Banked (+Per Turn)
Political Points: Per Turn Only, Cannot be Banked
Education: #
Infrastructure: #
Divisions: Total Possessed/Total Allowed
-Full Strength: #
-Battered: #
-Fought Out: #
Army Quality: #
Naval Groups: Total Possessed/Total Allowed
-Full Strength: #
-Battered: #
-Fought Out: #
Navy Quality: #
Air Wings: Total Possessed/Total Allowed
-Full Strength: #
-Battered: #
-Fought Out: #
Air Force Quality: #
Space Assets:
Terrestrial Colonies: EP Produced


Non-Playable Nation Stats

Nation Name
Government: Head of State (Ideology)/Ruling Party (Ideology)
Capital:
-Player Nation 1 Influence: #
-Player Nations 2 Influence: #
Economy: Growing, Stagnant, or Declining
Infrastructure: Modern, Mediocre, Obsolete
Divisions: #
Naval Groups: #
Air Wings: #


The stats above are not finalized by any means. These are just what I'm working with to date for consideration. The goal here is to reduce the stat management portion of the duties of the moderator in question. Without the (often lengthy) stat management of the entire world, maintaining the most tedious part of the NES becomes less of a chore. Minor states would still conduct diplomacy, and even wage war, though admittedly they would be under the influences of larger powers. There's a lot of little details some of you may notice about the stats above, and I'm happy to answer any questions on the meanings of various stats. The new ruleset only has the most passing resemblance to the older ruleset type last used with Capto Iugulum, and I believe I said before, that unlike the past three NESes, the new ruleset will not be simply an edited version of an old one, but a new structure altogether.

Oh, one other thing I forgot to put into the post above:

The reasons I am currently excluding the Far East and India from playable regions are below, and if you can convince me otherwise, I'll be more than happy to expand the area available. Once again, the other areas will be opened as the NES progresses, just not from the onset, unless you make some compelling arguments.

1. My knowledge of Asian histories not involving European domination is pretty much nonexistent prior to c. 1900. My knowledge of Asian culture is also minimal, especially when relating to its development. I don't feel comfortable writing up Asian history or development pre-European.

2. For the more, my emphasis for this phase of the NES is the development of a global community, which started in Europe for a number of geopolitical reasons that were already in play in 1,100 AD. I simply don't believe that light changes to the political situation in Europe will do anything to change what happens in China or India, up to a certain point.

I thought the entire point of us taking the regions is so that you don't have to know about each and every region. What if I want to try to make a Muslim China? Or a non Manchu? Or a long term Yuan? We might not affect the geopolitical scale, but events in Asia do affect other regions (Silk road, wantino a route to Asia)

I mean, in case of number two, the standard argument for it is that there was a significant amount of contact between many regions, especially in Asia, the Sahel, and the eastern portion of Africa, that existed throughout this timeline, very easily arguably moreso than Europe. It just so happens that a lot of the events weren't recorded/got destroyed/rich white people don't speak the language they're written in.

EDIT: That being said, I'm not sure those regions would see the effects of the PoD right away, so that's a different argument in favor of not worrying quite yet, I suppose.

stats look good. I really hope you don't botch up poltical points like I did with influence points during my NES.

re: Asia. Its true that the effects of the POD probably won't be felt yet outside of England and France (and potentially scandinavia) but once the Mongol invasions start happening (and that is fairly soon) you'd start having potential ramifications (what happens if Ogadei doesn't die and is successful, etc etc blah blah).

If you're operating on the principle that all changes must happen as a direct result of the POD being X winning at Hastings, it makes a little more sense, but once we start getting changes in the Middle East that leads to ramifications in Persia, and once that happens you start getting ramifications in Afghanistan/India/etc. On top of that, what happens in Persia and India has major effects on what happens in the Middle East and Anatolia - look at Tamerlane for an example. The only way to model stuff like the Mongols or Timurids and their effects on Europe and the Near East without modelling the far East itself is to just go "a conquering horde arrives from the East spontaneously" which is a pretty weird thing honestly.

I guess to some up my point is that changes go both ways, and what happens in Asia (even if it is just Central and South Asia) has ramifications on Europe. If you want to fiat it as happening the exact same way as OTL unless the PoD changes Asia, then I guess that works, but European affairs start having a real, direct affect on Europe and vice versa pretty quickly, round about the Mongols.

That's ignoring Africa, which had direct trade links with the Mediteranean (see: Mali, Songhai Empires) and if the PoD is resulting in changes in North Africa there are going to be changes in West Africa pretty fast.