Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
We're talking about history, not science. History is full of likelihoods and maybes. Science deals with things that can, with enough experimentation, be absolutely proven. History deals with a lot of things that simply do not have substantial evidence and must be guessed at by filling in blanks.
There is, for example, no hard evidence for who Cleopatra VII's mother was. Are we to assume, then, that Cleopatra VII was a myth? Or was she formed from clay by Amon-Zeus and placed by Hermes in the halls of Ptolemy Auletes? No, clearly she had a mother, we're just not certain how it was. It was probably Cleopatra Tryphaena, so that's what most historians go with.
Most heroic myths originate with real people whose legend is built and built over the centuries. I'm sure Lü Bu didn't stop a battle by hitting his halberd with an arrow at 1,000 paces. I'm sure Sūn Cè didn't died as the result of a mystic's curse. I'm sure the Yellow Scarves didn't follow a man who wielded the power of the heavens, nor did Kongming pray the winds into blowing. None of this discounts the events of the Three Kingdoms era as fact.
A number of the events in Arthurian legend have historical foundations. The Annales Cambriae was written around four centuries after the events they retell, which is about the same amount of separation Plutarch had from many of the events he wrote about. Yet how many of us consider Plutarch's accounts to be historically accurate?
The fact is, there are a number of sources which tell of an Arthur or likely Arthur-figure outside of the Matter of Britain, many written long before. Therefore, it is probable that a King Arthur exists. The question is only which figure it was.
Egyptian, Greek, Roman and such history is both documented by contemporary historical records which we have access to, as well as archaeological findings.
King Arthur can be supported by neither. It is a folktale, same like Odysseus, the Nibelungenlied or the Nordic Sagas. Quite evidently any mentions of magic, dragons and such already invalidate the whole story on first look.
Even Wikipedia is enough to prove this wrong. De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae mentions a great Briton victory against the Saxons at mons Badonicus, which also mentions Aurelianus as a scourge of the Saxons. This coincides closely with Uther Pendragon's legendary victory on the mount, which heralded an end to the immediate conflict between the Britons and the Saxons.
Historia Brittonum lists twelve battles fought by an Arthur-figure who fought alongside the kings of the Britons.
Annales Cambriae mentions the battle on the mount as well, though lists it in what would have been Arthur's lifetime. It also mentions Arthur himself as having fought and died at the Battle of Camlann. This is the one written 400 years after the fact. Plutarch, meanwhile, lived more than 400 years after the events of the Greco-Persian Wars he retold, and his accounts are the basis for no small amount of our historical knowledge of the wars.
Historia Regum Britanniae mentions both Aurelianus and Arthur, the latter of whom it calls king of the Britons.
There are also the mentions of a hero of legend named Arthur in early Welsh and Breton poetry. Again, I'm ad libbing a lot of this from Wikipedia, but that's the point. This information is out there, and it's not difficult to find.
There are four different people who are likely candidates to have been "King Arthur", including one actual king actually named Arthur.
All this suggests, based on historical records and local legends, that an Arthur figure did indeed exist at some point in time. OP is not asking how to establish the line of Arthur Pendragon, wielder of Excalibur and founder of the Round Table, First Among Equals, as rulers of Britain. In fact, that line is said in the legends to have died with Arthur, if I'm not mistaken. He's specifically asking which is likely the most accurate line which represents the historical "Arthur", from whom the legends spawned.
The closest that the British Isles ever came to a real King Arthur was Prince Arthur of Wales from House Tudor.
However, there actually is a hint to the Arthur legend in the game: If you control the Empire rank title (for me it was called Alba for some reason) and someone uses the claim throne scheme against you, they will claim descendance from King Arthur and you can call them a buffoon.
So if you make the claim that King Arthur ain't real, you gotta show facts to substantiate that too. It goes both ways.
Not so fast, my friend! Artuir mac Áedán is a "King Arthur" who is suggested to have perhaps fit the role. There were a few Artúrs who lived around the time King Arthur was said to have lived as well, and another Arthur ap Pedr.
There are also a few people who weren't actually named Arthur who are suggested to have possibly been men who inspired the legend, including Ambrosius Aurelianus (who was Romano-British) and an ancient king of the Britons named Riothamus, who likewise lived around the timeframe given for Arthur's life.
Note: Aurelianus isn't the one you suggested. That was Lucius Artorius Castus, who lived well before Arthur was said to have lived and was a full-blooded Roman. He is indeed, however, one of the possible figures suggested as Arthur.
The one challenging status quo is the one who needs to present evidents to support his/her claim(s).
Wasn't Aurelios Ambrosius one of the contesters?
Far as I can tell, some historians suggest he might be the origin of Arthur, others that he was the Arthur-figure's uncle.
I have read something similar (long time ago tho).
As for the ingame event(?) that is a little nice surprise.
The whole Arthur myth bear about as much historic background as the french Chanson de la Roland, The german Nibelungenlied and so on. Sure, those stories have been likely inspired by all of those historic characters but in the end they were written by their times equivalent of Tolkin and Co. The same was as Greek mythology and ancient Greek religious believes are two entirely different things.
I wouldn't want to see mythological figures added to a historic game. Getting a King Arthur is easy anyway. Just rename your Child and then take that decision to claim Britannia once that child is ruler.
Again, though, that's not necessarily what OP was asking for. He was asking which dynasty to choose if he wanted to unite Britain under King Arthur's dynasty. The Arthur of myth is essentially tribal history being rewritten with then-contemporary standards put into play, then worked into high fantasy fiction. That's not the dynasty OP is asking for. He's asking which dynasty most likely coincides with the historical "Arthur's" lineage.
Mentions of dragons and magic invalidate nothing. All it tells us is that they used a term to describe something that we would use different terms to describe. Fireworks were magic to most people for hundreds of years, and I've seen a number of historians say that most accounts of dragons were actually about alligators/crocodiles or other unusually large lizards. I also know of at least one example from 300 or so years ago where a "werewolf" that supposedly terrorized a town in France was actually proven to be a hyena (after the "werewolf" was killed the bones ended up in a museum and were discovered and analyzed in recent times)
Depends. You could play that way, or you could follow the version of the myth aligning Arthur with the Cornish dynasty (i.e. Dumnonian), which has traditions of not having originally been reduced to Cornwall.
Look the ancestors up and if you find Magnus Maximus (Macsen Wledig), you could pretend you believe Arthur was of the same house or related. Likewise if you find Ambrosius Aurelius.
You could also custom-design a ruler and pretend that his lack of in-game ancestors (parents and grandparents accessible as characters in the game) is there because his ancestry is not universally accepted and generally regarded as mostly his own claim he has not yet proved.
Only because they were all Britons and maybe Cumbrians if up North, not Welsh, at the time. From the perspective of 867 Welsh or Cornish is also OK. As at 867, Breton culture means being in Brittany, Welsh in Wales and Cornish in Cornwall in the realities of the 9th century and has no bearing back on the 5th and 6th.
If custom-designing, Breton, Welsh or Cornish would be okay. Cumbrian not really, though there are certainly legends placing Arthur up north. Roman not really, though there are legends giving him Roman ancestry, but still to be a Roman in the sense of culture in 867 would have been a stretch; you would need to have lived in isolation. An actual Arthur returning from Avalon could be Roman maybe.
Depending on which legends you believe: Catholic, Insular or Celtic Pagan.
Legends generally place Athur in the 5th and 6th century and that alone makes Catholic the most plausible option, short of ruling pagan out completely. A pagan Arthur (as opposed to various degrees of religious syncretism or religious ignorance or just peculiar beliefs or practices) is IMHO a notion mostly entertained by modern writers.
Arthur was above all a successful claimant. He didn't have a fluid succession from his dad.
In CK3 you can't have a claimant faction assembling independent rulers who, when the faction is successful, all agree to become the vassals of the successful claimant, who then gets a title higher than they all have. For example you can't have a faction of dukes or counts in an uncreated de iure kingdom all agreeing to create the kingdom and give it to a claimant and serve him as vassals. But this is what happened to Arthur.
Alternatively, you could pretend that Arthur was his dad's only kid and thus only heir, with no full-blood brothers, hence no competition, making moot the differences between strict Primogeniture and the various forms of Partition.
In a way, Arthur gathers together legitimacy by birth and legitimacy by election and acclamation, which are not incompatible. In the Early Middle Ages birthright was extremely precious but wasn't absolute, notably in the sense that people could still argue for younger sons rather than older sons of the dead king.
Yet another scenario that exists within the CK3 ruleset is getting designated as heir, which requires Absolute Crown Authority, though you would somehow need to explain/cover the timespan between Uther's death and Arthur's accession.
A CK2 mod (Winter King) did this pretty well by destroying the High King title under some circumstances, without taking away your counties, duchies and lower kingdoms.
This is all confusing, but the good news is you are perfectly fine to say you don't care. Succession law is simply not important to your project. Succession law after Arthur at least. And Arthur himself was his dad's only son and thus best claimant, if you need to partially explain Arthur's accession. You have much flexibility here.
Me, I would regard the High Kingdom as being Elective, where the valid candidates are lower kings and the current/last high king's kids, and all claimants. And claimants include descendants of past kings. Hence, heredity is also served and prized. CK-style Elective is not like a presidential election in a modern republic. It does hugely depend on coming from the royal family or ruling a huge part of the country already as one of the primary vassals.
Look at the 'Restore the Kingdom of Cornwall' decision to give you some pointers.
Choose Welsh, Cornish, Breton or Cumbrian culture depending on where you live (not excluding other cultures if you can come up with a plausible backstory, in which case your Arthurian heir could still convert to the culture of his capital).
When you create your kingdom (one way or the other), choose any succession type you can and want — it's not like Arthur was prevented from changing succession laws in his kingdom — and don't lose your sleep over it.
You will not be strong enough to form a kingdom without allies as the starting character, and your allies will tend to be Germanic simply because that's what the Franks, Saxons, Vikings and Visigoths all are. Pulling it out with Celts alone could be too difficult or even impossible. So think about a back story — by 867 any heir of Arthur's house would need to have a way of either defeating the Germanics somehow or living and working with them. And given how powerful the Karlings are, it's not very plausible to roleplay an open anti-Germanic stance (since in-game the Karlings would defeat you easily if you ended up at war with them).
I like playing reconstructionist Celtic games, but if you can't have 769 but only 867, then the reality is you (outside of a couple of narrow, gimmicky, lucky scenarios) need to have a way of living with the Saxons. And if not the Saxons, then the Franks, which is not that much different, except less immediate bad blood.
You could structure your game around some kind of moral leadership, such as being the head of the anti-Viking defensive coalition, putting you back in Arthur's role as Dux Brittanniae (according to one branch of the legends), the island's top war leader, with the Saxons first willingly working as your allies and then willingly submitting as vassals after you find a way.
To create a kingdom you need:
a) Exalted Among Men fame level (extremely difficult) as Cornwall, so you can create k_Cornwall by decision.
b) 30 counties (extremely difficult on your first character) and Illustrious fame level as a duke to create a custom kingdom.
c) control over more than a half of the counties in a de jure kingdom. This means Wales (extremely difficult/unlikely if you are not fabricating claims on them for outright wars of conquest), England (which is actually possible if Saxon petty kingdoms fall one after the other and you reconquer them one after the other, which is a rare but viable scenario in 867) or perhaps Ireland (which is not your goal), or Scotland (if it falls and you recover it), or a Spanish kingdom (you can reach Navarra if you take out Haesteinn in Montaigu, which you can do after holy warring for Leon in Brittany, in frog jumps).
Note that massive diplomatic vassalizations are unlikely. You could get a proper king title with relative ease, you could also get the True Ruler perk under the diplomatic lifestyle (giving you +25 to acceptance of diplomatic vassalization), you could give people gifts, but there's still the problem of being of a different culture, not overwhelmingly stronger militarily and not much higher than them on the feudal ladder (vs dukes and petty kings), and not their de jure liege (except where you are their actual de jure liege, e.g. if you create England).
In my subjective judgment, the optimum 867 Athur's heir scenario is as follows:
1. Saxon petty kingdoms fall.
2. You manage to recover them.
3. You get enough counties to create England.
4. You vassalize the remaining Saxons.
5. You get enough counties in Wales to create the kingdom and be the de iure liege of the remaining independent Welsh characters.
6. You vassalize the Welsh.
7. You continue on the same path toward the Empire of Brittannia but likely won't succeed as your starting character unless you get very lucky.
Less epic various:
1. Welsh counties and occasionally duchies fall one by one.
2. You recover them one by one.
3. You create the Kingdom of Wales eventually.
4. You vassalize whomever you can.
Plausibly from the roleplaying point of view, I guess you could also defend using de jure CBs against evil rulers — Sadistic Callous Arbitrary Kinslayer Murderers and people like that.
Some tips:
1. Paragon of Virtue piety level, which is difficult but perfectly achievable, allows you a once-per-lifetime holy war for an entire kingdom. This is something you can use against, for example, Jorvik to scoop its multiple duchies and assorted counties in one go, or against someone who has conquered Wessex, Essex, Kent and so on. Don't waste it. And remember you have only one attempt.
2. Sanctioned Loopholes perk in the Learning tree (Scholarship) allows you to purchase, from the Pope, claims even on people of different religions. This includes the Vikings. And the Pope generally won't refuse those. The costs are large, so you need to make a lot of piety, but it's doable.
3. True Ruler perk in the Diplomacy tree (Majesty) gives you +25 to diplomatic vassalization vs over characters. In some cases this bridges the cap, so you can vassalize someone who already likes you and has a lot in common with you (what also helps is being terrified by you, weaker than you, and your friend).
4. Majesty subtree in Diplomacy tree gives you more prestige, which can be a way to get Exalted Among Men to create Cornwall.
5. Theology/Piety substree in Learning tree gives you more piety, which can be a way to get duchy-level holy wars quickly and to get relatively quick access to a kingdom-level holy war. Also go on a pilgrimage for piety. Piety can also be exchanged for money, but that's splitting yourself thin if you also want holy wars.
6. Rulers with the Stewardship education and lifestyle tend to be the most effective at growing stronger by upgrading your domain. You could, however, argue, that the Piety route gives you similar benefits (money gifted by the Pope vs money saved on construction costs) or that Diplomacy is more needed/helpful.
7. Martial lifestyle is underwhelming but can be useful if you want to personally command your armies, for which you need the perks from the Gallant trees if you don't want an excessive risk of dying early. This tree also gives you a Promising Prospect perk that improves your marriage acceptance and that of your close relatives, meaning you can get better marriages for your family, meaning stronger allies, meaning larger armies on your side.
8. If your Learning is high and you generally get lucky, you can hope to research Onagers on your first character, which are siege machines, which will make sieges faster, which means a lot in this scenarios because you need to act fast in more ways than one.
9. And you need to act fast because the vikings can get some additional allies or pull a trick from their sleeve, or your peasants can rebel, or your allies can die or get involved in a different war and be unable to help you, or other Christians can outrace you to holy wars vs vikings.
10. Make a lot of coffee, reserve a lot of time and be prepared for multiple reloads. Write down lessons you learn and actually formalize your strategic ideas on paper and analyse them properly, even with a calculator. You will need all this, as this scenario is hugely dependent on random factors, i.e. 'luck', which you can help by exhibiting extreme skill (or just making very good choices followed by quick and perfect execution).