History Rewritten Beta Test

The new Roman empire and the papal states are two different empires.
I'm aware. This just furthers my point even more.

By Attila the Hun I mean all the barbarian tribes. They didn't just attack the west. It doesn't really matter though. The point is both the east and the west fell. It doesn't matter how, its just they did.
This is so wrong. They went west because of many factors. Going East makes little sense whatsoever, and what little sense is gone when you say IT DOESN'T MATTER. Proof that you really should have made a history before this.

England could have united early, but they didn't. I didn't say so, Omega wanted it, and united England. Anyway, technically speaking Omega hasn't united England yet, he still has the scotts to deal with.

LoE already ripped this strawman apart posts ago.

Sounds like you tried to make an althistory in 30 seconds, failed, and said IT DOESN'T MATTER.
 
England could have united early, but they didn't. I didn't say so, Omega wanted it, and united England. Anyway, technically speaking Omega hasn't united England yet, he still has the scotts to deal with.

This statement is so wrong it isn't even funny.
 
The new Roman empire and the papal states are two different empires.

By Attila the Hun I mean all the barbarian tribes. They didn't just attack the west. It doesn't really matter though. The point is both the east and the west fell. It doesn't matter how, its just they did.

England could have united early, but they didn't. I didn't say so, Omega wanted it, and united England. Anyway, technically speaking Omega hasn't united England yet, he still has the scotts to deal with.

Read and learn
UK-Map.jpg


When people say "England", they mean the south-eastern part of Britannica Major (the largest island containing England, Scotland and Wales). That's feudal England, that's been England since the English came to the Britannic Isles, and continues to be England. Scotland has never been a part of England because it is Scotland, and just you go up to someone in Ulster and refer to Ireland as part of England.

Here's another tip:

Anglo-Saxons: Germanic tribe from modern-day Denmark, immigrated to the Britannic Isles from around AD 400 to AD 600 during and after the Fall of the Roman Empire and established the kingdoms of (among others) Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria, Kent and Essex. Eventually coming to be referred to as the English, they repelled the Celtic peoples of the Britannic Isles west and north, who would eventually be known as the Welsh and Scots but were at the time simply referred to as Britons. The English would over time culturally assimilate the Welsh and Scots, giving rise to an Anglo lingual and cultural hegemony which would lead to the death of Celtic languages in the Isles.

Britons: Celtic peoples having resided in the Britannic Isles several hundred to thousand years prior to the rise of Rome and the Anglo-Saxon invasion, in modern times they are grouped together under the terms of Welsh, Scottish and Irish, and the less-known Cornish who inhabit Cornwall (south-western England ((not recognized as its own territory/state in the United Kingdom)) and tributary of the pre-Alfred the Great English kingdom of Wessex).

As is readily apparent, the term England and English results from the Anglo-Saxons. Scotland and Wales are not a part of England, and from a historical standpoint, neither is Cornwall. There would be no England were it not for the migration of the Anglo-Saxons (read: English) to the Britannic Isles, and if they were repulsed by the mythical Briton King Arthur, Britain would have remained Celtic.

For someone who lives in a Dominion of Britain, you might do well to read up on the actual history of the country instead of pontificating on myth and legend without any historical basis whatsoever.
 
This game's gonna massively fail if we don't start enforcing a "Historical Acuraccy be damned" rule. :(
 
Well, I never said King Arthur was real or not, but if he was, he would had lived in the early sixth century. If it makes you feel better, I'll renamed it Britannia, alright?
 
Well, I never said King Arthur was real or not, but if he was, he would had lived in the early sixth century. If it makes you feel better, I'll renamed it Britannia, alright?

You might try Albion as well, which is according to the historical record the earliest name given to the Britannic Isles by its original Celtic inhabitants.
 
You might try Albion as well, which is according to the historical record the earliest name given to the Britannic Isles by its original Celtic inhabitants.

I think the welsh word is Pryddain...or that could be the mutation...not sure.

Whoops. I was correct though, despite a minor spelling error. The welsh is Prydain (pronounced pree-dine) (dine as in wine). I believe Albion is what is currently the Scots-Gaelic for Britain?

And yes, both ilduce AND dommy need to learn the difference between England and Britain
 
You might try Albion as well, which is according to the historical record the earliest name given to the Britannic Isles by its original Celtic inhabitants.

Alright, fine, Albion. Is that acceptable? (I'm also assuming in this timeline, England/Albion isn't going to Christianize)
 
Alright, fine, Albion. Is that acceptable? (I'm also assuming in this timeline, England/Albion isn't going to Christianize)

Well, the Irish Rite was if I'm not mistaken independent of the Roman attempt to introduce Christianity to the Anglo-Saxons, so it's possible that the Britons could have become Christian independent of the English, but I consider it unlikely. Pagan deities would make up the majority of the populace's religion.
 
Well, the Irish Rite was if I'm not mistaken independent of the Roman attempt to introduce Christianity to the Anglo-Saxons, so it's possible that the Britons could have become Christian independent of the English, but I consider it unlikely. Pagan deities would make up the majority of the populace's religion.

The Welsh were Christian even before the Irish. Remember, Saint Patrick was a Welshman. I'd say it's highly likely that your kingdom would be Christian, but it would be highly independent of Rome, and more monasticized than what Catholic England would have been.
 
Also, I'm not 100% certain what that "brown stuff", on the map is, but it should cover Denmark, Germany and Scandinavia if it's "areas you can start in". At this time, Denmark was to my knowledge generally more civilized and peaceful than Britain. And of course there's the Holy Roman Empire which was centered in and around Germany.
 
The Welsh were Christian even before the Irish. Remember, Saint Patrick was a Welshman. I'd say it's highly likely that your kingdom would be Christian, but it would be highly independent of Rome, and more monasticized than what Catholic England would have been.

Owen does raise a good point. That, and my general lack of knowledge about Druidism, means I'll make it Christianized.
 
New Carthaginian Republic-
map-48.png

edit:Can you change Sardinia to the northern Sicilian province?
 
Moderator Action: Remember, civility is important and improves thread discussions. Just because an idea is yours, doesn't mean that posting it will add to the conversation.
 
@LoE: How many of your posts do I have to report before you SHUT UP AND STOP POSTING????

Also Owen, talking to LoE just encourages him.

Remember this is history rewritten, so I guess what happened history and in this will be (Slightly different). I asked people if it was spam, to either not post it, or post it in a spoiler. I am leaving everyone off with a warning this time. But any posts from now on containing more spam then on topic, will be reported (unless the spam is in a spoiler)
This makes it easier to run and easier to read through.
 
Top Bottom