Help with new Lion of the North Saga

No worries, it was not my most serious or best effort, and I may have painted with too broad a brush, and too flippant an attitude.

But I was referring less to the historical character of MacBeth than the mood and dramatic events surrounding the play. Esp the murder and betrayal part.

I admit that I put no specific research into this particular time period - if the specifics of the early 1200's were, inexplicably, a lull in the general bar fight that was early Scottish history... then my bad. Allow me a penance...

The general history of low-level lords in Scotland is hardly one of taking the moral high-road or turning the other cheek. Often during the formative years of the early Scottish nation the difference between brigandage and formal war was determined by who won the conflict (the winner always claiming they were the victims, that it was a just war, and fairly waged, ahem.) And just because one family won this generation, did not mean the issue was closed...

The larger picture was sweeping - in 1175 William the Lion* had only just sold Scotland to the English Henry for his liberty, having been captured by a freak chance after renewing the border war against England. Richard the Lionheart sold them their independence back 12 years later for the coin to go crusading, just before the turn of the century. During this time, the ecclesiastic struggles were just as tumultuous, as the Church o' England attempted to follow where the political power had shifted - and then back again. In 1214 William died, and his son, Alexander II, began a program of expanding the religious infrastructure.

(* Note that WtL was so named not for any character or act, but for putting the Lion on the Scottish flag, and that only.)

But the picture of the local lords was often independent of the overarching events. The Celtic lords and the Normans had no love for each other and often little for their own. Their feuds and troubles were the same, regardless. Galloway had rebelled outright when William was taken - this was not untypical of the attitude, that the oath of fealty was held as long as it was politically expedient.

The blood-feud, the taking of blood for blood, endured for centuries, and often a single incident echoed for generations. Homicides, for example, were very frequently pardoned by Royal grace, but "the pardon" was of no avail unless it had been issued with the full knowledge of the kin of the slaughtered man, who otherwise retained their ~legal~ right of vengeance on the homicide. There was no fixed capital - the King's (legal) Court circulated with the travels of the king. Local justice was often dictated by the whim of the baron, abbot, or the hand of the reeve on the scene.

And all this was, in fact, as TF correctly says, in a period of "relative" peace. But that peace was one in comparison to an ongoing state of war between Scotland and England - so take that "relative peace" for what it's worth.

Looks like I've got some more reading to do, dammit.

Who are you, and how come you are in my state? Don't you know we only have one Ars player per state in this country? 8)

(Seriously: Hi! Welcome aboard. )

With these links:

I have a good view of the political map where the covenant is located... I have historical names for major Lords, and the rest i will simply make up myself...

Thank you very much everybody and sorry for the bad english...

Don't sweat it, McFion. I'm a government bureaucrat - you have no idea how good it feels to do something useful and helpful for a change.

Timothy - thanks. I've actually been lurking around here for just over a year now, but never really had much to add. Now that I've actually got some experience with the game, I might speak up a little more.

Brief overview of Scotland in 1200:

Galloway is not a part of the kingom of the kings of the Scots, but an independent territory ruled by the lords/kings of Galloway. These lords also hold land in both Scotland and/or England depending at various times.

The Isles is ruled by the lord/king of the isles and is also not part of the kindom of the Scots. However the king of the Isles at some point conquers Man and rules both kingdoms.

During the 12th century the Scottish kings start to introduce feudalism to Scotland and grants land to Norman nobles and knights which is not very popular among all clans.

For the scottish curch follow the link below and good luck, it's really not easy to get an overview of in 1200...

Couple of links from wikipedia: ... l_Scotland

Couple of links on wikipedia you've missed: ... iddle_Ages

Thank you =)

No problem, I did some research for a Loch Leglan campaign last autumn...

I can add that the main struggel in Scotland in the 12th century wasn't between the anglo-saxon and the scots, but between the Scots and the new, French nobility. As a historian of the time noted:

"The modern kings of Scotia count themselves as Frenchmen, in race, manners, language and culture; they keep only Frenchmen in their household and following, and have reduced the Scots to utter servitude."

Although as noted above promegeniture was well established in 1200, the 12th century was probebly a consolidation of the kings power in Scotland and a movement away from the older Clan-structure into a feudal society. Although this was by no means over in 1200. Some earls/mormaers was still powerfull and idependent from the king and held their lands in their own right and not as vassals from the king. In Galloway and the Isles the older system was probably more or less still in place and little or no signs of feudality were present in those places in 1200. To see how this worked you can read about Somerled and his sons. After a strong king died his sons would often divide his land amongst them, and since no-one was really happy about their share they would start to fight... You can get a little insight into the clan-system here: ... lan_system

The basic difference is that in the older system the king is "elected" by an assembly of chiefs, mormaers, jarls/earls or what they're called. These people swore allegiance to the king, but the king did not own their land. The usual service the peers had to pay was not money, but military support.

Another link I've just found (which I sadly didn't find during my saga):

(They were called "Normans". I mentioned them above. Nice recap, tho'.)

Thanks, both for correcting me and the compliment :slight_smile:

about the french, you can check out this: ... annel_page