The Danish Starting situation and the Double Magnus problem.

[Oook]

Hi. First let me say great mod.

Playing Denmark has inspired me to do some historical reading. Why does Denmark not start with Jutland? Oh! There was a rebellion at the time. very cool.

However this reading has turned up what I think is a fairly major historical inaccuracy.

The Danish heir is Magnus, whose father is the current king Niels.


So far so good.

However in nearby Kalmar there is a rebel general.


Also named Magnus. Common Scandanavian name right?

However he is Magnus Nilsson. Some of you can already see the problem I'm sure.

Magnus Nilsson is Magnus 'Niels son' AKA Magnus I of Sweden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_I_of_Sweden

Hence why he was kicking around in southern Sweden. His claim was weak and only supported around the Kalmar (in game) area it seems. He 'seems' (hard to know for sure) to have been kicked out some time around 1130. So the rebel general should probably be removed..

That is the double Magnus issue, maybe just find another general to lead Kalmar so Magnus isn't so schizophrenic.


However there is some related Denmark starting stuff I would like to discuss.

The current Denmark faction in game (King Neils and Crew) actually lost the conflict that is raging at the start of the game only a few turns in (1134). The rebel general in Jutland won and became Eric II of Denmark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_II_of_Denmark
Promoting divergent gameplay is fun, but as it stands the historical outcome will never happen.

In a battle outside Lund (in game) Eric Emune beat Niels and Magnus. His use of Germanic Cavalry was decisive - probably why he starts with those mailed Knights.

I would argue that tweaking the Danish starting situation so Eric Emune is the 'Danish Faction' might help historicity and gameplay. By having 'Emunian Denmark' Start with Jutland it would help prevent the HRE from 'poaching' Jutland. It also offers a nice conversion point for the Danish campaign. Erik has his Cavalry and ends up smashing the more traditional foot based opponents. A nice transition point for a medieval Denmark Campaign.

I would argue that having 'Erik' Denmark start with Ribe and Lund (from what I can tell, Lund declaring for Erik seems to have turned the war which Erik was losing). Neils would hold Roskilde. (there was a battle on Zealand apparently, cant pin down what year) While Magnus would have a rebel army threatening Lund.
The rebels would have a bigger army, but Erik would have mounted bodyguards and a knight unit. (Germanic mercenary horsemen it seems, unretrainable mounted sergeants might be better if knights and BG is overkill.)

Erik made (unsuccessful) efforts to secure German and Norwegian support for his campaign. This is a good case for starting Denmark with a diplomat. IMO it should anyway but thats just me.

This seems like a fun start to the Campaign and gives Denmark a distinct flavor in Comparison to Norway. It also allows the civil war to resolve historically. I also really like the idea of making Jutland stay Danish more easily.

I'm sorry for the long post and apologize if I have made any errors or assumptions. I am by no means an expert.

I understand if such things are difficult to change and feel free to ignore my suggestions, though please at the least fix the double Magnus thing.

Also if you do keep the Nielsian Danes, Magnus should start married, with the polish wife trait.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richez...ueen_of_Sweden

He should also start with two very young sons Knud and Niels. Including Knud is important IMO because he would become King later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute_V_of_Denmark

I apologize if I broke any customs with this thread, I'm new - but I love this mod and wanted to share my ideas to improve it.
Thanks for all your hard work.

[Lifthrasir]

That's fine Mate. No worries. That gives the opportunity to discuss here about the Scandinavian factions in general because Denmark and Norway rosters aren't accurate.

About the double Magnus "issue", that can be easily solved by renaming the rebel general in Kalmar. I guess that it's a remaining mistake as the game used to start in 1100 AD by the past.

Regarding Jutland, that's a bit more "complicated". I need to gather the info from my archives but will reply here as soon as I can.

[MWY]

Good post. I mean major historical innaccuracy is kinda stretched, but well.

You're right I must've overread that magnus was actually the son of the king of denmark. Do you have a suggestion for renaming/attributing that character in kalmar?

I don't think Lund turned to erik in 1132 already.. do you know that? And in general, Niels was the legitimate king at this date and I think I'd like to represent this as it is. I know it sucks that history deviates already after such a few turns, but it's the game's limitations which come into play. Just like for example for the almoravids and their civil war with the almohads.

I agree with the rest of your post though.

[Oook]

Yeah sorry about the major inaccuracy thing. I wrote that very early on when I had mixed up some years a bit. Never changed it.

I agree with much of what you're saying. Lots of reasons to keep the status quo.
The limitations thing is very true you have to pick where you accept them. For me the Niels crew was already on the way out. Niels is ancient soon to die. Magnus has been kicked out of Sweden (suggesting incompetence or a weak position) and very unpopular. He had his cousin murdered which seems to have started the whole war.

Been doing some more research though and it brought up some interesting stuff. I thought you had a very good point with the Archbishop of Lund only declaring in 1134. However this source (http://danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon...-ca-1090-1137/) actually goes into detail about the territorial control. It seems like Erik had a lot of support. Niels and Magnus fought battles in 1130-1131 to re-secure Jutland and Zealand. However they lost a naval battle and it seems that Erik managed to hold Scania. Lund isn't specifically mentioned but it seems likely Erik held it convincingly as he felt confident enough at this point to leave for Norway and Germany to seek support. Also given that Niels and Magnus didn't move until 1134 implies that Eriks hold of Scania was fairly strong. The Archbishop declared in 1134 seems to have mostly been committing extra men and materiel. Apparently 5 bishops died fighting on Eric's side.

This information was excellent but very surprising. It suggests a flip in the province holdings. With extra awkwardness since Erik was the one who held the capital. Worth mentioning the Erik was Elected originally elected King in Scania which suggests a fairly strong level of support in that province. Especially considering he seems to have held it despite suffering several important defeats.

While no doubt Niels was the de facto king 1132 I think both he and Erik had a very strong de jure claims. Both were the sons of former Kings. The context of Eriks Election is important I think. By Electing him I think the nobility was sending a pretty strong message to Niels. Magnus killing his cousin (who it seems would have been king after Niels) really seems to have angered people and weakened their position. If it was a traditional 'legitimate' election than you could argue Erik was the legitimate king. If it was simply an election by his rebel supporters then no. Sadly I don't think this information exists. BTW not disagreeing that Niels was the legitimate king, just pointing out that legitimacy in early Scandinavian monarchies could be a flexible and complex issue.

I still like the idea of an 'Erik' Denmark, but if he were to just start with Lund, that would be a bit rough (I think more fun, but I'm biased ). But the source seems to say that 1132 Niels should have Jutland and Zealand, Erik Scania. I wish I had found this source earlier since it invalidates a lot of what I was saying before. Sorry .

Erik holding the Capital is awkward so I'm not sure if you'll want to give that to rebels? You guys know best what will effect balance and the like. Given he only held Lund I understand if my idea for an Erik Denmark is dead.

With regards to a replacement in Kalmar I really cant find anything. No sources for any kings of the geats or the like I can find. Denmark seems to be much better documented thanks to the Church. Sorry, sources are light on the ground.

[Lifthrasir]

Regarding the "Magnus issue" in Kalmar, we can replace him by Sverker of Sweden or Sverker the Elder.

Regarding Erik and Niels, it appears quite difficult to represent that in game. I agree with your sources Oook but how to represent that in game?
From my opinion, the best option would be to make Denmark starting with Jutland, Zealand and Scania. Then, make Erik II rising with a spawing army in Scania near Lund in 1134 AD. Then, a choice should be given to the player: If he chooses to play Erik, then Jutland and Zealand become rebels. On contrary, if the player choose to play Niels, then only Lund becomes rebel.
However, this implies 2 questions:
- can it be done via script for instance?
- if yes, how this will affect the script as we try to keep it as "light" as possible in order to not increase the AI turn duration?

[Oook]

Sverker was my first choice too but he's already in proto-Stockholm (can't remember the name sorry).

I didn't know such a thing might be an option, regarding events. I think your solution is most fun and adds some extra replayability too, if it doesn't bloat your script. My personal instinct would be fire it right away though. Leaving it for a few turns would probably feel gamey. It's not inaccurate to have it fire at the start since there seems to have been a stalemate 1131-1134. Erik would have had less support but I think Niels was kinda stranded by his naval defeat (this is my reading of the source, I don't understand otherwise why Niels and Magnus wouldn't have just followed up on their string of victories). In game Niels and Magnus can walk to Lund so I think it is a fair compromise to give Erik his support 'early'.

Explanation of why things escalated in 1134.
The murdered Canute was a German Vassal so that put Niels and Magnus in a delicate position. Niels had to pay an indemnity to Germany and recognize the authority of the German archdiocese over that of the newly established one at Lund. Otherwise Germany might have supported Erik (I'm not sure they would have, but Niels was certainly worried about it). This is what seems to have pushed the archbishop into declaring so strongly for Erik in 1134. I think kicking it off at the start is probably simplest. That way people don't send their army off to Visby or something and get surprised - probably much cleaner in general. If such an event is possible/desirable in the first place.

[Oook]

Sorry for the double post, not allowed to edit my posts yet.

I think it would also be fun and appropriate to give Magnus the underhanded trait. Represents his unpopularity (and willingness) for killing his cousin.

[Lifthrasir]

Sverker was my first choice too but he's already in proto-Stockholm (can't remember the name sorry).

In that case, we can replace Magnus by Folke the Fat. He's from East Gothland which is pretty close to Kalmar province.
Folke the Fat is considered as an ancestor of Magnus Minniskiöld who's himself considered as the founder of Stockholm.
I just need to check if Folke was still alive in 1132 AD.

[Lifthrasir]

I confirm that Folke the Fat (Folke den tjocke in Swedish) or Folke (Ingevaldsson) Folkunga is a "suitable" option. He was Jarl of Sweden and Earl of East Gothland. His birth date is unknown or around 1082 or 1078 AD (depending on sources) and he died in 1149 AD, apparently in Flanders (for most of the sources I could find). I can't find much details about that character except that he was considered as the most powerful man in Sweden around 1100 AD (according to Saxo Grammaticus, Danish historian and theologian, 1150 - 1220 AD).

[MWY]

I've added Folke (replaced Magnus Nilsson). I'll see what I can do with the scripting, but don't expect too much.

[Oook]

Cool, any thoughts about giving Denmark a diplomat? Its extra annoying as they can't build one right away without taking a bigger city. I feel like if Norway gets one, Denmark deserves one too.

[MWY]

I'd rather get rid of the norwegian one.

I think it's kinda gamebreaking to have units (or agents) your not able to recruit at game start. That's why I removed most of them.

It's also a bit of a bigger challenge to start without a diplomat, and reflects the worse state of development (compared to the rest of europe) in scandinavia.