Medieval European Mod II Preview

[Lord Cooper]

oh **** did he say florence?! thats in italy i know. my bad lol i thought he said the flemish, which yeah are in the lowlands.. that was completely my bad. i do know yeh lol. man ythat wa smy own stupidity. but yeh i know they are two diff groups. da vinci was from florence

 

[embryodead]

@Lord Cooper
I'd say Florence was very important, not as a military power, but as an intellectual and cultural center of the Renaissance. Anyway, at the moment it's not Florence, but Florentine-flavored Italy, which just can't be omitted. Although I'm still not sure if say Tuscany wouldn't be a better name.

Norway was skipped originally cause for the most part, them and Denmark had one monarch.

I generally agree on Papal States - but they have a place in scenarios. Two days ago we discussed including jorde's Pope leaderhead, among others, in the mod just in case.

@Quinzy/LordCooper
I mentioned the Flemish as well (Flanders)

 

[Lord Cooper]

yeh lol.. i agree with the florence thing, for some reason i read when you said florence, i read it as the flemish (flanders) it was my bad lol. i know my medieval history dangit >_<

and yeh denmark and norway were under the same monarch but still were very diverse, but hey thats like great britain i guess.

 

[rifleman]

Leaderheads used for the basic version. The French and Byzantines could use a replacement one day, but I think it should be ok for now... if you have questions/doubts about some leaders, ask now!

What? No Erik the Victorious?! Hey, he may not be right for this mod, but ya gotta post him so we can use him.

This guy is AWESOME!

 

[rifleman]

On another note, I think the Franco leaderhead would be a better fit for Corduva

 

[rifleman]

And another...

Have you thought about using the Vlad Dracul leaderhead for Hungary, as in Janos Hunyadi?

It would be a shame to have the Turks, Byzantines and NOT Janos or Vlad

 

[embryodead]

No, no

Cordova = Moors... you know, the Muslims from North Africa. Franco doesn't look anything like a Moor and R8XFT's Abd-al-Rahman III is exactly the leader we're using - the Caliph of Cordova. Franco does look very similar to Ferdinand II of Aragon though, which may be worth considering over my old Spaniard.

Same with Hungary... why use a Wallachian Leaderhead for Hungary when we have a Hungarian one (he even has the Saint Stephen's crown etc.)? It's actually included in the mod, to be later used for Wallachia, of course.

As far as Erik goes, I haven't rendered or even animated him.

 

[rifleman]

As far as Erik goes, I haven't rendered or even animated him.

Say it ain't so

I hope you finish him

 

[St Exupère]

Hello,

This truly looks like a fantastic scenario, cannot wait to play it.

In the meantime if I can be of any help, or take part in some historical/technical discussions, I would be pleased.

One comment on one of the screenshots on p.8: I understand that the scenario starts in 1075 and I noticed that you have given the city of Toulouse to the kingdom of France (Franks). That area, until the late XIIIth century, was going to be very turbulent and I was wondering whether such struggle could be featured within the scen. A full Frankish crusade was actually fought in Languedoc against the dualist heretics (Bogomiles or Cathars) and that had enormous political consequences since eventually the whole Pays d'Oc slipped under Frankish vassalage. Toulouse itself, a very important European city in the XIth and XIIth century, lost its sovereignity to Paris in 1229. The coumts of Toulouse tried and succeeded in bringing the Aragonese to their side (Pierre II) in the fight against the Franks which was long avoided at first, but then became inevitable when Raymond VI decided not to hand-in the Cathar minority living within Toulouse. A Toulouse-Foix-Aragon coalition was defeated by the Franks in the battle of Muret (1213).

A fascinating period since the purely political alliances were very fragile because of the tremendous influence of the Church which was trying to impose its "peace of God" all over Europe and focus the fight against (mainly) islam overseas.

I understand Toulouse and vicinity are not important enough to be independant by themselves considering the size of the map. Yet, I was wondering whether it should be given to the Franks or the Aragonese and in any case if there was any possibility to ignate some sort of conflict between both kingdoms over that key area (ressources, borders, wonders, etc...).

Cheers

 

[Yoda Power]

Cordova = Moors... you know, the Muslims from North Africa. Franco doesn't look anything like a Moor and R8XFT's Abd-al-Rahman III is exactly the leader we're using - the Caliph of Cordova. Franco does look very similar to Ferdinand II of Aragon though, which may be worth considering over my old Spaniard.

We can't even use him for Aragon, since he have the Alhambra Harem as background. It's a nice head though.

 

[St Exupère]

Another subject: Burgundy. I have seen this has been slightly commented already but I am a little dubitative at to its limits and even inclusion within the scenario.

1/ Burgundy was conquered by the Franks at the fall of the Roman empire - ethnically, linguistically, at all levels it is extremely close to the Kingdom of the Franks which would eventually lead to France. The heart of what was to be Burgundy for centuries until absorption by France is France-Comt&#233; and Besan&#231;on; it has sort of always included the Lyon-area, and has extended its reach to Flanders and Provence but only through mariage and vassalage, not military conquest or "colonization".

2/ Flanders was only part of Burgundy for 150 years, starting end of XIVth ie very late in your scenario. Flanders had a vibrant history of its own before it was part of Burgundy, after and up to today. Moreover, it is distinct from "Frankish culture" quite significantly, at least linguistically - which is not true for the heart of Burgundy.

3/ Burgundy has been called for some time Kingdom of Arles and has indeed included Provence (a good chunk of south-eastern France). But only for 100 years, breaking up as early as 1032!

4/ after that and until roughly mid XIIIth, Provence was not a vassal of Burgundy anymore and was either independant, or claimed by Toulouse, or by Barcelona (Aragon). From the end of the Crusade vs Albigeois (1229), basically the Franks establish a domininion over both comt&#233;s de Toulouse (south-west) and Provence (south-east) though officially the latter will only be fully integrated into the kingdom of France in 1481.

All in all, to me, the Burgundy inclusion makes little ethnical, cultural and historical sense though it does fill in a gap politically. I have contested Toulouse being given in 1075 to the Franks, and the same goes of Arles certainly. Ghent is to the Flemmish and Besan&#231;on ended-up until very late (XVIIth) under Germanic control. If you removed Burgundy completely you could have space either for the Flemmish, or another Italian civ (Genoa-Savoy), or create Occitanie (Toulouse-Arles, basically all southern France which spoke langue d'oc, a distinct dialect of French).

I would be happy to discuss all this further, but given the span of the map and the very strong identities each people is supposed to represent, somehow Burgundy does not fit in IMO.

 

[Yoda Power]

St Exupere - I think you are underrating Burgundys status in medieval Europe. It certainly was more independent than Toulouse, and altough it's geographical borders changed a lot during the middle ages, it still kept existing in one way or another. Politically it also played a very big role, where Dijon sometimes were considdered the leading French city (compared to Paris).

 

[St Exupère]

Another topic: Normandy and Rouen.

You are being historically accurate in liking Rouen to the south of England since continental Normandy was controlling insular Normandy (south of England) from the 1066 conquest up to the Frankish victory of 1204. However in such case, one could argue that the English in your scenario could be called Normans instead, with Rouen as capital instead of London!

This would make little historical sense in the broad perspective of your scenario we would agree; however it might be harsh on the Franks to give Rouen to the English since in reality, it was rather the English that were vassals of Rouen - and the Normans, though their nobility was of Viking origin, were by early XIIth both ethnically and culturally much more Frankish than Anglo-Saxons.

If you decided to remove Toulouse from Frankish grasp, you might want to re-balance it in giving them Rouen plus in terms of "identity" and history it probably makes more sense...though then, the independance of Brittany is a bit of an issue as well, as it was pointed out.

 

[St Exupère]

Yoda,

Politically I do not underestimate Burgundy. It was stronger and more influential in that respect than Toulouse, though at least until 1229 absolutely not more independant than Toulouse. What I contest is the (much needed) "identity factor" attached to Burgundy: originally they are Franks and the heart of its culture, language, etc... is Frankish - or French. If the scenario started in 650 then sure Burgundy as one of the main Frankish kingdoms, would be one of the contenders. 400 years later is a different story.

They then only existed as a buffer political zone between Franks and Germans and IMO never constituted a "people" as such with any sense of common destiny. When the Franks submitted Languedoc I can assure you than it was a much bigger cultural clash than between Paris and Dijon, or Besan&#231;on. The whole medieval resurgence in Western Europe is considered having started in Abbay of Cluny, Burgundy - and yet the champions of such resurgence were clearly the Franks (theologically, politically, artistically, militarily). In other words, Cluny "appeared as if" under the full political shadow of Paris to the eyes of the rest of the continent (and beyond).

Hence my comments, though I know the House of Burgundy continued for long and well beyond the contemplated period, to play a major role in Western Europe.

 

[Wolfhart]

What I contest is the (much needed) "identity factor" attached to Burgundy: originally they are Franks and the heart of its culture, language, etc... is Frankish - or French. If the scenario started in 650 then sure Burgundy as one of the main Frankish kingdoms, would be one of the contenders. 400 years later is a different story.

Depends on the starting date; starting in 500 AD the Burgundians are absolutely not Franks, but they are conquered by the Franks and assimilated during the 6th-7th centuries. So there is some ground for a separate Burgundian identity even within the Frankish realm, like there was a Gothia in the south of France with people defining themselves as Goths and still judged by Gothic law in the time of Charlemagne.

Edit: not that I have to tell a man from Toulouse that...

 

[embryodead]

Thanks for the input!

I like the idea of giving Toulouse to Aragon. It's good also from the gameplay perspective - first, because Aragon is very weak in that scenario, and second, because it would promote conflict with France, and conflict is good!

For the same reason I'd prefer Rouen staying with England. I don't see a problem with London being the capital - after all soon after the conquest the focus shifted there, and by the time of Henry I, Normandy was the possession of the English King, native to England, not the other way around.

Regarding Burgundy - the base for the scenario is the main mod, whose time line is 700-1550 AD. But even that 11th century scenario's time line is 1075-1550, e.g. it skips the first era in the mod. In other words I didn't mean it as a scenario about 11th century, but a scenario that starts in 11th century and goes way into the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance. For this reason it includes Tatars and Burgundy. Unlike with say, Teutonic Knights, there is a basis for including them in 11th century at least - Burgundy did exist, just not as an independent power, and so did the Turco-Mongol tribes of Asian Steppes. I know the idea of the old Kingdom of Burgundy mixed with the later Duchy's possessions is fishy, but it seemed the most feasible solution, and still much less unhistorical when compared to Burgundy in the original Middle Ages Conquests... There's also no other major European player there (Flanders = 1 city), and Burgundy is ready-to-use in the basic mod.

As far as the identity goes, there's no claim that later Burgundians are some people distinct from the French. "Civs" in MEM are not nations/people, but sovereign states or ruling dynasties, so for instance, there are 3 Russian "civs" in that scenario.

 

[P-51D]

So, if the scenario goes from 750-1550, are you going to include the mercantalist/imperialist aspects of Europe?
And are there going to be cursades?(Scripted)

 

[embryodead]

So, if the scenario goes from 750-1550, are you going to include the mercantalist/imperialist aspects of Europe?

If you mean colonizing the new world, that's how the game can end (by successfully finishing the Columbus' expedition). The game takes place in Europe only though.

And are there going to be cursades?(Scripted)

There is no scripting in Civ3, unfortunately. You can build Crusaders and/or the Holy Crusade/Jihad autopro wonders and do it manually though

 

[Mirc]

Edit: Ignore. I have to check out if my post makes sense. I have to carefully read through the last pages. Sorry. If I find what I meant was not stupid, I'll re-add it.

Meanwhile, just saw the leaderheads and maps post!

 

[St Exupère]

Depends on the starting date; starting in 500 AD the Burgundians are absolutely not Franks, but they are conquered by the Franks and assimilated during the 6th-7th centuries.

This is true, even though out of all the Germanic peoples that we know of the Burgundians are probably one of the smallest in numbers; they got trashed and traumatised by the Huns, then repeatedly beaten and submitted by the Franks, and indeed assimilated. The laws forbidding (to their nobility only) mixed-mariages were suppressed by the Church in the IXth century.

So there is some ground for a separate Burgundian identity even within the Frankish realm, like there was a Gothia in the south of France with people defining themselves as Goths and still judged by Gothic law in the time of Charlemagne.

There is some ground, more so in 600 than in 1100. I was focusing mainly on the scenario here. Your comparison with the Goths is somewhat valid within the "Frankish realm" in the High Middle-Ages, however it is not if you broaden the scope, the influence of the Goths being much much greater on the continent that that of the Burgundians.