French holy roman empire

What year are we talking about?

Also you should tell us more about the rest of the Mediterranean to decide what to do with Southern Italy. Celtic Britain and probably the Saxon Kingdom are relatively irrelevant compared to what's going on Greece, the Balkans and North Africa.

>French holy roman empire
Big Charlie approv-
>Alsace isn't French on that map
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>Kingdom of saxony
0/10 would shed their blood again

>Celtic Great Britain
Meh. Norman GB > Celtic GB > Anglo-Saxon GB. 6.5/10 bretty gud.

>Islamic Spain
LEAVE.

>No Idea what I do with Southern Italy
Normans?

How would you explain Norman Sicily but no Norman GB (and maybe not even Norman Normandy since OP said nothing and we don't know why GB is celtic).

What if this is the world just before the Norman invasion?
The Norman invasion of what, you may ask. Of Britain or of Sicily?
What if I told you the Normans are the BBEG and want to invade fucking everything?

They wanted a warmer climate and didn't think they'd have much chances against all these big powers. They sailed down to southern Italy, separated from the rest of the Byzantine Empire by a sea and took it before they could react.

Both explanations are good enough.

They could also easily conquer parts of Spain depending on what user means by "muslim Spain". Taifas were small, rich and shit at war.

Lombard principalities, Islamic sultanate in Sicily, Byzantine controlled enclaves peppered throughout the coastline of the Mezzogiorno

not that hard, senpai

Norman encroaching on Mezzogiorno started like over 50 years before William's invasion of England
There's literally no problem with Norman Sicily but no Norman GB

>French holy roman empire
Noice. Italy stays a clusterfuck I assume, some Pro-Empire others against it?
>Kingdom of saxony
Saxons only made up a rather small part, so the name is kinda off.
>Celtic Great Britain.
Saxons/Angles/Jutes got assimiliated into the celtic population? Mite be cool.
>Islamic Spain
So they finished the job and did not rather fuck each other up? Good for spain and europe as a whole. Could start enlightenment a few years earlier. Or could be used as front to further empower Rome. Neato.
>No idea what I do with southern Italy.
Eastern Roman? Norman? Maybe a clusterfuck of some minor states. Some leaning to Constantinople, others to Rome, some even Muslims (Sicily is a good candidate).

20% of portuguese and p to 30% of spaniards have genes originating in bloodlines from Morocco and other places in the Magreb. Don't kid yourself, kiddo.

The mountains in between still have pesky Basques, and large scale wars are always a bitch.

Even when invited by a coalition of Muslim cities Karl the Great only managed to establish a Mark so block raiding parties for a bit and got fucked up in the Mountains.

Peole fucked each other. Some Iberians got themselves some qt Moors. Some Moors got themselves some qt Iberians.
Also Iberia was well established in the Islamic world, much trade went in and out.

Y Haplos allagedly from north africa or levant (J and E) are 10% tops, combined. And it could be something precedent, see Greece and Italy.
Admittedly, Portugal has a bit more.

As a whole, Spain is arguably more Celtic than France. We have more J and E in Italy.

I know nobody gives a shit about best Europe, but you need pagan Lithuania (in place of Poland), republican Novgorod (in place of Russia) and Avar Khaganate (in place of Hungary).

What about Scandinavia? Still Viking?

>Kingdom of Saxony
Include a bit more of northern Germany?

Yeah but Spain never needed an external foe to fuck itself be it pagan, muslim or christian. It would be nice to know what muslim Spain actually means since a Caliphate is not the same than a collection of local kingdoms and in turn this is not the same than a foreign dynasty of african zelots.

Sami except on the very southern parts of Norway and Sweden
Denmark would be germanic

Meh. I like the idea of stronger pagan realms in Scandinavia and a more norse influenced Russia

How about fairly independent city states/duchies that are under the Byzantine hegemony but by and large run their own affairs? Thats pretty much how it was before the Normans and a somewhat more anarchic political structure as opposed to centralised (for the middle ages at least) states might make a nice counterpoint.

It is a caliphate.

Bit boring to be honest.

>I like the idea of stronger pagan realms in Scandinavia
Lapps were pagans.
>and a more norse influenced Russia
No way that can happen as long as Russia is much bigger than Scandinavia and has Byzantine Empire next to it.

I do not think a collection of local kingdoms could survive against a france on steroids.

Well, the christian spanish kingdoms did survive against the spanish caliphate on steroids and even conquered land from it.

I like it, vikings are getting unoriginal. Not that they should be erased, but something new for Scandinavia is always welcome.

Maybe something causes the Byzantine Empire to focus away from the north?

wat

are you a special kind of retarded?

I think it was the Russians (and Bulgars, and etc.) focusing on the south and not viceversa. Byzantines were interested on conversion but that's pretty much it. Let's be honest, you can't compare what norsemen have to offer to the most advanced nation in western eurasia.

Think of Spain during this period as warring states Japan. Lots of de facto independent political entities, sometimes fighting each other, sometimes working against a common foe. Recent studies of the era suggest that local lords were more concerned with the threat of their immediate neighbors(be they christian or muslim) than they were of some religious common purpose .

In short, don't think of Christian and Muslim and conflicts between them in the modern conception of the medieval. It probably didn't work that way

Byzantine efforts had little to do with it. Imagine yourself as a Russian duke at the time. In the North you have a bunch of savages no better than yourselves. In the West you have old enemies who hate your guts. And in the South you have the world's richest empire. Which one would you try to imitate?

Nice argument, faggot.

>French holy roman empire
Karl and Otto, not Charle and Louis, ok? Praise Friedrich

Fair enough, that does make sense

There was actually even intermarriage between the Ebro valley muslim lords and the Pamplonans/Aragonians and later on when the Almoravids came Christians and taifa kings were allied in some cases

*Frédéric

Not to mention that the most famous hero of the period fought for and against both religions.

Al Seed?

Yup

>BYZANTIUM

Freedom ain't free. The tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots, tyrants and nobles. Francis aka France is (owning his ass) is not my kaiser, he is neither holy nor roman nor imperial. Empereur et Constitution not König und Kaiser, ok? Vive la Revolution.

>Spain
>Islamic

Pick one.

They have morrocan genes but they are catholics and speak a latin language.

I'll take "shit that's irrelevant" for $200, alex.

Just keep it a part of the byzantine empire.

>The remnants of the old Roman empire.
You mean the east roman empire?

Have it run by Jews.

So, you're trying to make your last game of CKII into a setting?

That's actually not a bad starting spot for an AU game.

>set ck2 to spectator mode
>Go do something else for two hours as it runs at x5 speed until the game ends
>come back and check the alt history setting it gives you
>hey presto you've made an entire setting with zero effort

>you've made a disgusting pathwork canvas of bordergore
>throw up and close the game and go shitpost on /gsg/ about Grossgermaniums and how shit everything Paradox has done post-Vicky 2 is

It sounds like you've been playing CK2

What about keeping Sicily Latin/Roman. Sardinia for example still speaks a dialect closer to ancient Latin so a Roman Sicily free of Byzantine/Greek or Arabic influence might be cool.

i thought germans claimed Charlie as german? i mean in truth he basically defined future french and german identity with his policies, but i thought you guys still have internet fights about that.

if you curate (use console commands to redistribute border gore among vassals, add some religious strife, cause rebellions) it ends up looking quite nice.

Shit, I planned an entire Alt-History campaign around that exact idea. Except I accelerated up to the Age of Discovery so I could have a Mongolian Successor state in Central Europe, a Nestorian Church ascendant, and Muslims fighting Norse-descended natives in the Americas.

>What if this is the world just before the Norman invasion?
Then England should be Anglic rather than Celtic.

Read the chain before you post.

The same as always - a hot potato being played by pretty much everyone around.

Ask yourself how well are faring your Byzantines and then act accordingly

>i thought germans claimed Charlie as german?
Not really. During the world wars a lot of Germans actually hated Charlemagne as they saw him as forcing French culture on dindu nuffin Germans. Nazi Germany actually greatly admired Widukind. Even the Germans who saw Charlemagne as a positive influence mostly saw him as foreign/French.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widukind

The modern German WEWUZ is mostly the EU trying to rewrite history so Charlemagne is French and German at the same time so he can be called the grandfather of the EU.

Could work, but I meant it regarding your Kingdom of Saxony having the territory of southern Germany, parts of Swizerland and much of Austria, too.

Charles was neither French nor German. He was Frankish, and he spoke Old Frankish, a Germanic language closely related to Flemish, and his people were Franks, a Germanic people - or about as Germanic as the Saxons or Angles at the time, which is to say they were all genetically more Celtic than Germanic but spoke Germanic languages and had adopted Germanic culture.

The people the Franks conquered already spoke Latin however, and despite the Franks making themselves the ruling class they had, apart from a few loans in modern French of Germanic origin, very little influence on the culture or language of those people.

Similarly the Normans has very little apparent influence on modern England apart from a great deal of loans (some of which were Germanic words re-introduced through French), but the language was still Germanic and still retained the very Celtic sentence structure that had even managed to survive the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

I thought Charlemagne spoke French. Wouldn't the Franks have been living in Gaul for a few hundred years by now.

Rome was owned at one point by the emperor. Swiss mercs become a meme because they defend Rome to the death

NormanS found the crusader states, Sicilian empire, Malta, and GB (yes the normans are invited to Scotland)
Although the Sicilian normans were nobles they weren't the ruler of Normandy. The whole reason they conquer southern Italy is so the sons don't fight william

Old French didn't emerge until like the 10th century somewhere north of Paris.
Charlemagne's native tongue was some sort of Old German dialect and he was fluent in Latin. IIRC Frankish was already starting to disappear and morph into Franconian or Dutch before he was even born.
And yes, Franks had been in Gaul for a few hundred years by then.

>Norman GB > Celtic GB > Anglo-Saxon GB
What's it like to be objectively wrong?
Anglo-Saxon GB > Norman GB > Celtic GB
The only people who disagree are heritage-addled Americans or continentals eternally salty at England for some reason probably involving military defeat.

Swiss mercs became a legend because they were universally recognised as the best Renaissance soldiers in Europe.
>tiny little confederacy
>sandwiched between France and Germany
>actually expand by conquest

>some reason probably involving military defeat
some reason involving endless treachery and backstabbing would be more accurate.

Make southern Italy and most of the Mediterranean be the Greater Republic of Greece.

>i thought germans claimed Charlie as german?
Karl der Große is the german name of Charlemagne

>The people who disagree that Anglo-Saxon Britain is the best are people who are salty about post-Norman Britan
U fookin wot lad? If anything Norman Britain is why you aren't washing yourselves with rags on sticks.

You're on a one-drop-type board, user. Percentiles only matter if it means you get money from native American casinos.

>the very Celtic sentence structure that had even managed to survive the Anglo-Saxon invasion.
For anyone wondering, what's most likely refered to here is the reliance on the verb "do" in English. For example, when asking if someone speaks English you would say "do you speak English?" but in every other Germanic language the "do" would be redundant in that sentence, and the correct thing to say would be the equivalent of "speak you English?"

This type of structure does appear in Celtic langages, however, while English has very few Celtic loans. This implies that when the Angles. Saxons. Jutes, and various other Germanic tribes conquered Brittain the natives learnt the words they used but not their grammar, and after a few generations that Yoda-speak became what we now know as Old English.

>Even the Germans who saw Charlemagne as a positive influence mostly saw him as foreign/French

The Germans generally considered him a german Emperor and the French claimed that he was French, seperately from each other. That some non-christian Nazi playwriter was all REEE REEE REEE about Charlemagne as a Christian had absolutely no influence on his public image in christian Germany.

My teacher skipped karl.

What about people who came over in the Norman conquest, and their ancestor was William's axe bearer?
Swedish or Varangian guard would have that distinction I'd think

The swiss were at their best when fighting for others (mostly the pope and France) though, [fun fact, the Swiss were among the last defending Louis XVI]. Swiss Neutrality actually came from the fact that Francis I and his Venetian allies wrecked their shit so hard.

>Swedish
I don't think they were every really famous as mercenaries. Also, I'm not too sure if their reputation as great warriors outlived Gustav Adolphus.

>Varangians
You're a century or two late there senpai.

>Swiss
>best
They were for a while. The Landsknechte out-innovated them eventually.
Massed pikes tend to fare badly against lots of guns.

>Yoda-speak became what we now know as Old English.

What a cunt.
But so was Karl, so it balances out somewhat.

Germany wasn't united, neither was Italy to the south.
Meanwhile Austria and France fought over Burgund.
In short the Swiss had pretty much free reign.

What about Norwegian England?

>I'm not too sure if their reputation as great warriors outlived Gustav Adolphus.
It did. It died with this man.

You mean if Harald Hardrade had beaten Godwinson and Billy the Bastard, finishing the job that the Danes with the Great Heathen Invasion?

I'd be very okay with that.

French as such didn't exist at the time. The Gauls spoke varying dialects of Vulgar Latin, and the Parisian dialect was the one that would rise to prominence and eventually become the French language.

Behold the Welsh speaking Global Celtic Empire. Pity the vowels, they never stood a chance.

youtube.com/watch?v=v9wQSCOuT4o

>French holy roman empire

>Voltaire
>"""""HOLY""""""
>"""""ROMAN""""""
>""""""EMPIRE""""""

Voltaire, my son
yuo are men now
yu must choose subject and rite philosophy
will you rite sirius political commentary
or shitpost?

I know this isn't the place to ask it, but Veeky Forums is the board that trivializes all other boards and /gsg/ (on Veeky Forums) is more concerned with shitposting than actual discussion.

So... Darkest Hour or HoI III? I've tried both for a little bit. DH feels a bit untransparant, but HoI III feels like fucking four dimensional chess. I get everything about that game EXCEPT military affairs. Because the whole OoB system is just so gosh darned difficult.

Darkest Hour has the Kaiserreich mod.
Play DH.