The mythic elements are there ofcourse, but most of the magical traditions will be chocking under the Dominion aurae - probably moving north to the northern parts of sweden and norway, or across the sea to Iceland.
In the big map in Guardians of the Forest, next to Denmark on the key it says Novgorod Tribunal. Although Jutland and Sjaelland allow you towns, Ars Magica author Christian Jensen Romer has firmly stated that due to its low population density, Falster is clearly where all the vis sources and magical creatures are. I humbly suggest north-western Fyn would have similar properties. 
Denmark in 1220 is not "past its glory days" - modern Denmark's time was just beginning. The flag which fell from heaven in 1215 (and remained the national flag since, unlike every other nation on the planet with their johnny-come-lately flags) came during a crusade in the Baltic - Pomerania belongs to King Valdemar, so the crusade against the baltic pagans is very much part of Denmark at the time.
If you're after looking for vikings - well, christianity had been spreading for a long time. Olaf haraldsson (or St Olaf) died in 1030, so Norway was pretty christian for at least 190 years before the Ars 5 period starts. Given the inferiority of most non-Hermetic longevity magics, it is doubtful there are any pagan magi in the more populated parts of scandinavia who aren't aware of Christianity and divine auras and can remember a time when pagan ways ruled the land.
Thinking of the Maghreb - Timothy Ferguson has pointed out there's some good stuff you could do on Mythic Mali, and the wikipedia article on trans-saharan trade en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Saharan_trade suggests the trade links south from the Maghreb offer a chance for your magi to make epic journeys south.
The Canary Islands - the bit in Ancient Magic does offer a moderate amount.
The expression was chosen to provoke - nice catch: 
Perhaps another (better) way of putting it would be "Scandinavia by 1220 is really just another feudal european area, if a little colder than most".
Still not accurate, but not exactly wrong either.
I would have to say it IS quite wrong. Mainly because feudalism like in much of Europe never quite happened here.
Kings were elected and if one made himself disliked, more or less of the area marched against him and deposed him (and last time something like this happened was in the 19th century).
And while some noble families had lots of power, it was very different from the kind of nobility you found in France or the British isles to use a stereotype.
There was a very notable heritage from the viking era, much more land was independently owned and leases had more "equal" regulations, ie it was treated more as two sides making an agreement, not an owner setting arbitrary terms for a tenant that couldnt refuse.
So, "just another European feudal area" is extremely wrong. Feudally locked serfs/peasants to a large extent simply didn´t exist. Either someone was "your own man" or they were part of the household of a "storbonde", a "grand farmer", i cant even find a real translation for such a simple concept. Villages consisting of unfree or semifree tenants of "some nobleman" in a manor or fort nearby, that was something that happened elsewhere.
That´s also why "peasant armies" were the norm for a looong time. Because there wasn´t a bunch of noblemen sitting around waiting for a fight, if there was a fight coming, it was a matter of rallying the local families either for local defense or to march elsewhere.
In a way, you could say that all free farmers were treated as minor nobles might be elsewhere.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledung
Feudalism was implimented very differently in eg England and France. Some scholars have argued (don't know if they still do) that the only "true" feudal state in europe was England. I believe that's an overstatement, but they do have a point.
So what was "feudalism like in much of Europe"?
Not sure about Sweden, but in Denmark the possible candiates for election cme from a very limited list.
Yes, there was a king murdered because he was unpopular and yes there were civil uprisings.
Most feudal states had these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince-elector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Hohenstaufen_dynasty
Perhaps the holy roman empire was not feudal, as the "King of the Romans" was elected by the Prince-Electors?
Again, not sure about Sweden (or Norway for that matter) but in Denmark there was a rather interesting trend:
Being 'old nobility' was not better.
The "old families" were (to some degree or other) sidelined and became lower nobility, while the kings' favorites appear to have been never men, men the kings themselves had granted land and power. Still speaking only of Denmark.
So they were (atleast originally) in most of europe. These terms have depended very much on period and location in any case - there were huge differences not just between eg England and France, but within France itself, as far as I've been able to dig up.
a) The idea of nobility as we usually see it is very much tinted by hind sight.
I know there were unfree/semi-free tenants in Denmark, though they were later.
In general, feudalism became harsher over the years, and Denmark was at the time in a transistional period. Sources disagree on when it started or ended, but 1250 appears be a popular year for declaring it 'fully feudalised' - which ofcourse clashes with those who state that England was the only truely feudalised nation.
Perhaps because from a relevant POV they were?
Interesting, but I fail to see why it was included?
I never argued against peasant levies - they were common enough everywhere else as well, even if they were generally considered inferior by the nobility.
Indeed I believe English law (later) came to require all adult males to be proficient in the use of the longbow?
Or are you argueing that if there are peasants trained in fighting, there cannot be a feudal nation?
No, Scadinavia were feudalised (depending only on your definition of feudalism), the only difference being when and how much.
By 1250 it has been strongly indicated that Denmark was more akin to the Holy Roman Empire than to Denmark of the Viking age.
Politically though not mythically.
The current royal line here traces back to a man who was previously a marshal of Napoleon with zero connection to nobility. So while the "list" was commonly not so big, it was not something written in stone.
More rigid and regulated with a much lower degree of "freemen" and "freedmen"(ex-serfs)?
And as an example, like many other places the rules said only nobility could serve as officers and civil servants, but unlike many other places, here it became the norm to create assetless nobles out of suitable people instead of locating someone who already was a noble.
And how common was it for support of the peasants to be the important thing, when elsewhere having the right nobles behind you was what mattered?
Denmark was the only part of Scandinavia that came close to the more common sort of feudalism of Europe.
Not nearly to the same degree.
Because of how it´s background shows a small example of what i refer to?
And voila, here´s part of your problem. You pack all together and assume they´re the same, despite just reading that they´re not.
If i oversimplify extremely, peasant levies in England were pressganged, here they were rallied. Neither of those is correct but as i said, oversimplified.
By that definition, we are living in a feudalised world today.
That's true, and the danish royal line are the Hapsburgers, not related to the viking kings in anyway.
I trust though that you will grant me that Napoleon is rather later, and not necessarily a good example?
While this is true, it also appears to be a somewhat overstated by various sources.
That rather depended on scale, neh? Denmark is about the size of the larger French Counties as I recall, how often were the counts dependent on the peasantry? I don't know, that's an honest question, in case you were wondering.
I believe I was mainly talking about Denmark? (and to some degree their vassals, though I must admit the Kalmar Union is rather later than our default period.
Perhaps true, but that was rather earlier.
If I had no problems with my arguments until here, I'm surprised.
Both of our statements are oversimplifications to the point where they are almost meaningless
Have I contested that? I could carry on, but I believe the board has rules about modern day politics.
Regardless, my point was simply that Denmark was not in the Viking Age by 1220.
I have indicated that I have less knowledge about the rest of scandinavia, though I believe they would be in a transitional period as well.
Considering that scholars argue about when the Viking age ended, but the year you usually see is 1066, I find these reasonable statements.
Assuming agreement that the next scandinavian periode was the feudal period, then this is what they would presuming the transition to be towards.
We can argue for a very long time about exactly what "feudal" means, since the historians appearantly disagree.
No, it was never english feudalism, but that's not the only definition, just the one most know about.
But that was never the point of my argument. Apologes if I made it unclear.
That is an assumption that simply cant be given any form of agreement because there IS no distinct "feudal period" in most of Scandinavia, that was my whole point. If you start talking about "feudal Sweden/Norway" the most likely response you will get is a a big "huh?". And if you do it about Finland, well you´re at best in the utterly wrong time period. You can try and make a case for Denmark, but even there it´s shaky.
Where in the modern world do we have individuals getting tax benefits, land or assets in return for providing military assets?
Where in the modern world do you find a class society regulated by law?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs.
Well, Scandinavia had lords, but vassals and fiefs, not so much no. And lacking severely in a "warrior nobility". That´s why i mentioned the heritage of the viking era, the common man were also the warriors.
The important part is that lords had no hereditary fiefs, and their lands were legally THEIRS, not on lease from the king.
Sweden introduced a pseudonobility thing in 1280 where those providing a heavy cavalryman got a tax reduction, this however was mostly to partially replace the ledung-system and never really resulted in a "warrior nobility" but rather merely reduced the tax for those with enough land and assets to field troops already. And this for the simple reason that there were no fiefdoms, when someone was given control of a manor or castle owned by the king, the land around it did not change hands, the peasants who owned it before, still owned it.
As i said before, legal ownership of the land was taken much more seriously, a king could make a law giving him the right to impound land for some reason or another, but if the law was unacceptable to either nobility or peasantry(and to differing degrees the church and citisens) the king either didn´t make it or he got overruled, with or without force.
You talked about Scandinavia and used Denmark as the example even though it was the "odd man out", and even there "feudalism" is a questionable description.
Overall, if you had the support of the peasantry, that was decisive. If you had support of enough of the peasantry and some of the more influential clans like Tott, Brahe, Bonde etc., that may be decisive.
If you only had the support of the nobility, well it might be enough if the powerful clans were firmly in your support, but that was not a normal happening(if ever?).
The Outlaws concept sounds really interesting, though I'd love to see it done with a bit of a twist:
Rather than just a list of individuals, I'd love to see instead a variety of chapters on different kinds of outlawed magic, with a sample villain and some story ideas for each.
- Political Outlaws - still active within Mundane society somewhere
- House Diedne - secret groups within the Order, initiations and mysteries
- Sinister Mystery Cults - actual cults that are antagonistic to the other members of the Order - including both Marched and current members.
That kind of thing - a nice toolkit of secrets, lore and sample villains to hide both within the Order and in the dark corners where Marched wizards hide.
And maybe even a chapter on how to run a (probably short) saga or story in which the players are Marched or otherwise antagonistic to the Order.
Am I alone in wanting the Diedne to remain secretive and mysterious?
If we get any sort of "official" treatment of them, then I'd prefer it to be something like the books White Wolf did to end their old World of Darkness lines: Four or five different treatments, by different authors, bringing up different aspects of the Diedne myth, ascribing different powers to them in each version, each showcasing a different take on that particularly murky part of the Order's history.
No.
And given who else is on your side, you are likely to get your wish. 
I don't want them left mysterious, but I would prefer what you've said here, 4 or 5 full takes on them to mix it up and give Storyguides a bonanza of material to draw from, possibly taking bits from several to create a pastiche of the House they like best. I say this because I know most Storyguides want to incorporate the Diedne in somehow, even tangentially, and having something to draw from, even partially, is better than having to spin it up whole cloth yourself.
-Ben.
Well, that makes any treatment much less likely to happen, doesn't it?
-Ben.
I"m joining this conversation late as well. In no particular order:
-- I would like to see the 4-5 takes on Diedne as well, exactly as described, for the reasons described. Even if it was released as PDF only or something, so that it feels separate from the "official canon."
-- second the call for a bestiary that compiles all the various materials into one volume, to aid in familiar design. Heck, for that matter, we've got APPRENTICES and soon GROGS... should there be a FAMILIARS book?
-- I very much like the idea of OUTLAWS. This could have small scale villains, and saga-scale plots. The last Iberian saga I ran had a long thruline that involved the Duresca scrolls and a large contingent of elder Guernicus and Mercere that were very slowly trying to take over the Order. Every saga needs a good villain, and ones from within the order itself can be the most difficult / interesting stories to tell because of all the restrictions on dealing with other members of the Order.
-- My number one request (as previously suggested) is a volume of collected storyguide articles by many different authors on whatever subject they choose related to running a game. I want to know how David Chart and Timothy Fergusson tell a story, for example. Having seen Erik Dahl in action at Grand Tribunal America, I want to know how he develops an idea. (I'm not just referring to published authors of course....) I want to know what tricks different storytellers use to get their stories out of their heads. How do you turn an interesting historical figure into a story? Really specific information on how each Storyteller works. What pitfalls do various storytellers run into and how to avoid them?
-- I think I read that "adventures" don't sell well (for some reason). This is basically a direct question for David Chart: Would it be possible to do something like the White Wolf SAS (short adventures in PDF-only form)?
rpg.drivethrustuff.com/index.php ... 8ault.aspx
Years ago I was asked to put together a one-shot weekend adventure for several friends who were all going to be in town for the same weekend, and I ended up downloading one of these adventures and running it. The format was great. Detailed, solid, interesting plot with a great climax. Well-defined characters with useful role-playing tips. Excellent artwork.
I'd love to see this kind of thing for Ars.
-- I would enjoy a 5th ed. MYTHIC PLACES book -- interesting supernatural locations with a bit of history and several story seeds. Some could be based in historical legend, others not. For example, I use the short Vis Sources from Covenants ALL THE TIME. This book could have more of that (short little vignettes / bare-bones ideas) as well as a few fully developed mini-arcs involving legendary supernatural places.
-- On that note, what about MYTHIC OBJECTS? -- again, there could be an open call for fun magic items with a few story seeds for each, on up to larger story arcs involving -- I don't know -- Verditius' Rings, the Sword of Roland, powerful relics, etc. Again, an emphasis on historical / legendary objects would be really interesting to me.
My one comment I'd like to make is that I'm not sure Deidne still is secretive and mysterious. With all the source material for ArM5 I think they are only mentioned a few times. As the line has grown I think Deidne's role as the mysterious other has gotten watered down a bit.
(Just to be clear I'm not complaining about the amount or quality of the work Atlas is doing. Love the stuff keep it coming.)
I'm just wondering that if Deidne isn't given some more face time in the supplements they might be wandering into the realm of historical footnote.
Personally I'd be up for a 4-5 shades of Deidne book. But even a couple of chunky sidebars might do them some justice without defining them to clearly.
Must... not... fanboy...
I would say that if the Diedne diminish into the level you've foretold for them, this would be a good thing. Instead of being the "very obvious antagonist", they instead become "an obscure yet cool part of the background that the GM has chosen to dredge up for us to oppose." In my opinion, this is far, far preferable to a Star Wars style trope wherein they're the Standard Villain.
In my experience, a campaign antagonist that your GM has made up from whole cloth is more satisfying than one which comes pre-bundled with the setting. You get the sense of mystery, the sense of grasping out into the genuine unknown, and the thrill of fighting an enemy whose capabilities are shadowy, rather than "Oh, it's the Sabbat / Kolat / Inquisition / Sith / Wyrm / Movers / Architects of the Flesh / Diedne again, let me check my notes from the last campaign". Even if your players aren't metagamers and won't apply their previously perfected tactics to this game, they know what those tactics are. The characters might not know, and there might be some fun stumbling around as the characters try to work out what the players already know, but the player creativity and ingenuity is gone.
A campaign antagonist which the GM has created from whole cloth, but which riffs back to obscure bits of the setting and which ties in neatly with its backstory and thus does not strain credibility, is in my humble opinion the greatest of antagonists. Therefore, for the Diedne to diminish to the level where players genuinely do not expect them, know nothing about them, and have those panicked conversations where they throw out possibilities and you, as the GM, can cherry-pick the most interesting possibilities and then pretend that they were your idea all along, is the optimal outcome for them.
Also, let's remember that we do know the Diedne's capabilities, more or less. They're Hermetic magi. They cast Pilum of Fire, they have the Parma, they're vulnerable to Twilight. Sure, they have some extra tricks in the same way that, for example, the Merinita have some extra tricks; but the broad outline of their powers are Hermetic. That's what makes them delicious antagonists. The more you take their capabilities away from the Hermetic style of wizardry, the less interesting they become as antagonists, because they stop being "us, but through a dark mirror" and become merely another opponent like the Volkhov / Gruagach / Augustans / Muspelli / et cetera ad nauseum.
Therefore, to end a long and disjointed rant (what can I say, it's a slow day): The Diedne are already perfect. We already have the right amount of information to use them as campaign antagonists. We don't know their motives, plans or movements, and that's as it should be, since that gives GMs freedom of movement. Their powers are already in the main book, except for some extra frissons which should rightly be something that's left to the individual campaign. In my humble opinion, nothing can improve upon this except for them becoming more obscure, which as you point out will naturally occur via the slow dilution of time and new books. Therefore, where the Diedne are concerned, I submit that Pangloss is right and we live in the best of all possible worlds.
It's said that a good engineer makes himself obsolete, because if something is done right the first time, it never needs to be touched again. Mr Chart, Mr & Mrs Nephew, I submit respectfully that in the case of the Diedne, you are good engineers.
Yeah. Make it a 64-page softcover like Apprentices, throw in lots of mundane animal stats, the animal generation guidelines, and a bunch of common effects enchanted into familiar bonds. Heck, I'd even buy it if it were only mundane animal stats - I just don't want to stat up all the animals that pop up in sagas myself. 
Given Shapechangers and Animal magic these stats see use a lot more often than you'd expect.
There is the Book of Mundane beasts...which is pdf, and which is in Mystery Cults and RoP:Magic, to some extent...or are you meaning something else?
-Ben.
I mean the Book of Mundane Beasts blown up to a 64-page softcover. I'd buy that.
+1 to this. Especially if each animal could have a small story seed attached.
Eric