Faeelin
Banned
Okay, now that I have everyone's attention on a sealion matter...
I'm working on a scenario in which, in a revival of arthur's empire, the pope gives Richard the Lionheart the title to the Roman Empire, bypassing Henry VI's son (who's in a much stronger position, as king of jerusalem, having centralized germany as much as a feudal state can be, king of sicily, and has garrisons in some italian cities). He decisively defeats the Capetians, who become a rump kingdom under English hegemony.
Richard, gallantly going down in legend, besieges the imperial capital of frankfurt.
He dies from a crossbow bolt.
In the aftermath, Arthur of Brittany grabs western france, the capetians make a revival and grab normandy, and tolouse is swallowed up by catalonia.
John, in England, faces an imperial armada, under Frederick's banner in what represents, in heraldic terms, a lion in a sea. The barons, tired of the wars, think that maybe an emperor of a less centralized state will treat them with a bit more respect. He does, briefly.
Not for long, and eventually England rises up, finally succeeding a good ten years later, under William Bacon, who leads a guerilla band in nottingham. In the delusions of arthurian restoration that characterize england, he adopts the banner of the red dragon, which, as the legends go, foretells the arrival of arthur, who drives out the invading saxons (or their convenient swabian stand ins).
After a few nasty battles in southern england, William's cause triumph. Since no one in England wants to bring back Arthur (of Brittany's) heirs, and do not want another imperial viceroy, they adopt the claim that there is a king of England.
That king is the true Arthur, who is asleep until the day England needs him. In his convenient absence, England is run by a protector of the realm, and a parliament.
Thoughts?
I'm working on a scenario in which, in a revival of arthur's empire, the pope gives Richard the Lionheart the title to the Roman Empire, bypassing Henry VI's son (who's in a much stronger position, as king of jerusalem, having centralized germany as much as a feudal state can be, king of sicily, and has garrisons in some italian cities). He decisively defeats the Capetians, who become a rump kingdom under English hegemony.
Richard, gallantly going down in legend, besieges the imperial capital of frankfurt.
He dies from a crossbow bolt.
In the aftermath, Arthur of Brittany grabs western france, the capetians make a revival and grab normandy, and tolouse is swallowed up by catalonia.
John, in England, faces an imperial armada, under Frederick's banner in what represents, in heraldic terms, a lion in a sea. The barons, tired of the wars, think that maybe an emperor of a less centralized state will treat them with a bit more respect. He does, briefly.
Not for long, and eventually England rises up, finally succeeding a good ten years later, under William Bacon, who leads a guerilla band in nottingham. In the delusions of arthurian restoration that characterize england, he adopts the banner of the red dragon, which, as the legends go, foretells the arrival of arthur, who drives out the invading saxons (or their convenient swabian stand ins).
After a few nasty battles in southern england, William's cause triumph. Since no one in England wants to bring back Arthur (of Brittany's) heirs, and do not want another imperial viceroy, they adopt the claim that there is a king of England.
That king is the true Arthur, who is asleep until the day England needs him. In his convenient absence, England is run by a protector of the realm, and a parliament.
Thoughts?