For King and Country

[Palaiologos]

Hey dudes when i say British betayal i mean during the Greco-italian war of 40-41.

Prime minister Metaxas wanted to sign a treaty with the Germans prior to their invasion(we were already at war with the Italians), thus keeping Greece out of the great war, but that didn't suit well with Churchill's plans who wanted expansion of the war into the Balkans. So Metaxas was promptly assasinated by the English.

The Germans you see had sent an ultimatum that any presence of British troops in Greece will be considered an act of war agaisnt the Reich. Subsequently Metaxas refused any aid Churchill offered so as not to incite the Germans to attack. The Brits wanted to send just token troops only to provoke the Germans to invade. Metaxas death cleared the way for British intervention. It is worth mentioning that the Aussie officers were drawing up evacuation plans before even reaching Greece.

don't get me wrong here- i don't doubt Australian bravery. Indeed the Greek army although in a state of colapse after the German breakthrough from Yugoslavia decided to prolong its resistance to the Germans just to give valuable time to the Australian troops to escape.

Amazingly enough the Greek army in WW2 suffered no defeat in actuall combat. The fortifications in Macedonia and Thrace were never captured(surrendered after the Germans had bypassed them via FYROM) and the Greek Epirus army(500.000 men) being in danger of being cut off from Greece by that same German breakthrough from FYROM, surrendered to the Wehrmacht instead of its Italian opponents. They considered a disgrace you see to surrender to opponents they had routed for 7 months.

[Palaiologos]

Dark days these were..

After the initial Italian invasion the Greek army counterattacked in Albania. The city of Avlona (last major port in Italian hands) was ready to fall, and with the Italians lacking air supply capabilities it would spell disaster for the Italian army in Albania(500-600.000 men). The Italian high command terrified at the prospect of such a catastrophic defeat decided to ask the Germans for help. The German ambassador in Athens contacted the Greek goverment and told them that if we were gentlemen enough to spare the Italians the Furher himself would mediate peace. The Greek goverment fell for the bait, Avlona was not taken and the war continued.


After the German conquest, in tribute to Greek bravery no greek POWs were taken and the officers were allowed to retain their swords. Actually the campaign in Greece is considerd the last "gentleman's war" by historians. I mean later followed Barbarossa that shaped WW2 in a terrible and barbaric event and of course , Korea,Vietnam and the modern wars of our times.

Terribly sorry for the Off topic and the rant.

[POTUS]

Ok, currently I am looking at and modifying maps to decide which one I'll use.

[curtsibling]

POTUS, keep us informed of developments!

We have the full range of historians here to keep the scenario on track!

PS
Do you plan on a series?

[josefstalin]

including Civil War?

[GoPostal]

Yes, you could have the Conquest (C10 - 1096), 100 Years War, War of the Roses, Tudors, Armada, Stuarts, Civil War and Jacobites.

[josefstalin]

[mutters triumphantly]
and after that it was all Empire!

How about a scenario covering the succesion in the 1660's,
also the Plague and the Great Fire of London could make "guest" appearances

Tip/Reminder- If you want a unit which destroys all units in one square, but doesn't create pollution, you can set its attack value between 80 and 84,

although I don't know any way of having a unit which does cause polution but doesn't destroy all units
[sigh]

[POTUS]

This will be a series, but first the Normans, Saxons and Vikings.
I think I have the map, but I am still looking, and if I see a better one, I will use it.

[GoPostal]

How big a map are you including? Will you have NW Germany, France, Norway, Denmark?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by POTUS
Ok. I think this will be a mutiplayer scenario on the events of 1066.

Be sure to review the 1066 scenario in the original Bestonet collection.

[Valuk]

Bah, multiplayer scenarios aren't nearly as good as single player one, thought you'd need some experts to help you, since the actual happenings were FAR more complicated than what they teach in schools.
As I remember it(ah, those were the days!), the Celts allied with the Vikings and harried the coasts, and Harold's brother defected to the Scandinavian side.

[GoPostal]

Harold's brother (Odo), did in fact defect to Hardraade, but they were routed at Stamford Bridge.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Valuk
Bah, multiplayer scenarios aren't nearly as good as single player one, thought you'd need some experts to help you, since the actual happenings were FAR more complicated than what they teach in schools.
As I remember it(ah, those were the days!), the Celts allied with the Vikings and harried the coasts, and Harold's brother defected to the Scandinavian side.

It's a confusing period of history. The inhabitants of Britain when the Romans invaded were Celts who had been pushed westwards into Wales and Cornwall by Germanic invaders, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians many years before the Norman Invasion (in the 6th and 7th Centuries). These Germanic invaders collectively became known as English. The heyday of the Viking raids on the British Isles were the 9th and 10th Centuries, during which time Wales and England were also raided by Irish Celts, although they were not allied with the Vikings.

Harald Hadraade was not part of the main Viking period (I think Corelli Barnett called him 'last of the Vikings'); like William Duke of Normandy (himself descended from Viking raiders) Harald saw a chance of usurping the English throne when Edward the Confessor died without an heir and it passed almost by default to Harold Godwinson. The earlier Viking raids had been principally about raiding for booty, rather than taking the throne of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, although many Danish Vikings eventually established their own province in Eastern and Northern England (the 'Danelaw').

Although the Norweigan Harald Hadraade had led the life of a Viking in his youth it's best to think of him as an invader intent on taking the throne, rather than a Viking raider. Come to think of it, a scenario based on his exploits would make a fantastic scenario. Among other things he became a Varangian Guard in the service of the Byzantine Empire, and subsequently ran off with the Emperor's daughter, IIRC.

[fairline]

Originally posted by GoPostal
Harold's brother (Odo), did in fact defect to Hardraade, but they were routed at Stamford Bridge.

Odo Bishop of Bayeaux was Wiilam of Normandy's brother, GoPostal. Harold's treacherous brother was called Tostig, who, as you probably know, had been exiled by Harold after ruling as a tyrant in Northumbria I think. It was Tostig who stirred William and Haraald Hadraade into invading England and as you say, he was killed at the battle of Stamford Bridge along with Hadraade.

[POTUS]

Ok, so the Celts and Vikings, under Harald were attacking against Harold, were they allied with the Normans, or was it just that they both had the same goal?

And, if I am reading this right, the Celts were in Ireland and Wales. Where is Cornwall? And were the Irish Celts the only Celts fighting Harold, or were the Welsh ones also allied with Harald?

And, how important were the nobles?