Nav 7 History

[Walter]

I debated about this one, but figure the Norse could fill in

Well, as I had no idea how the history of the Roman part of the Netherlands would be, I kinda assumed that the southern part of the Netherlands was Roman and the Northern half would be the Netherlands prior to the Swedes taking over the area with some bits of Northwest Germany added to make it a decent nation on par with the OTL Netherlands. I kinda liked the idea to play the role of the English Bully in the first few wars so the Netherlands would be weakened while the latter wars would be with Sweden which in the end would result in the Northern Netherlands becoming part of the Swedish Empire.

Maybe you could do something similar with the Southern part of the Netherlands and bully them in a number of Roman-Dutch wars. As the Sixth Anglo-Dutch war was between 1803 and 1810, you could use a similar (and perhaps shorter) time frame as a follow up to the Bonaparte Rebellions where loyal supporters of Bonaparte have fled to the Southern Netherlands and the Romans attack and occupy Holland to get their hands on these traitors. Just some vague idea.

I think our best bet for a General European Conflict would be in the mid 1700s.

1740–1748 War of the Austrian Succession

Excellent! A War of Succession always works. :)

Maybe some kingdom in the southeastern parts of what is now the Swedish Empire (as there is currently no player for it so easier to mess around with) which could be contested between Swedish Empire, the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire.

So this way you would have three potential candidates to become ruler of that kingdom, one Roman supported, one Swedish supported and one Byzantine supported. Now Iberia, the Northern Kingdom and Parthia may look like they are left on the Sideline, but I could see the Northern Kingdom support one of the Non-Roman supported candidates while the Parthians would support one of the Non-Byzantine supported candidates. Due to their decent relations, the Iberians could probably support the Roman supported candidate.

... Of course if you want to make it really wild, you could have the Iberians support the Swedish, the Parthians support the Romans and the Norse support the Byzantines. :D

[Kaiser Kirk]

Well, I'm ok with a general war in the 1700s.  Historically Persia tried to Ally with the Hapsburgs against the Ottomans, so a strong unified Germanic state is viewed as in the Parthian interest.

IF we want to have conflicts in the 1800s, sans Napolean's exploits, I would suggest working around Walter's 1860-66 Mongol war.   The Swedes get cast in the role of both Gustav Adolphus and the Prussians - fast and technologically advanced.

1854- Parthia launches offensive in Caucus against Mongols, captures North shore of Black Sea, drives north towards Kiev.
1856-1859 Byzantium, threatened by Parthia's presence on the Black Sea, comes to the Mongol aid and launches the Crimean conflict. Parthia finds it's equipment outdated and fights a bitter defensive battle, loosing the new lands on the Black Sea and it's ancient holdings around Baghdad.  Peace with the Mongols is followed by concessions to Byzantine.
1860-1866 Sixth Mongol-Norse War.  Norse assault the the weakened Mongols before them.
1864-1878 Swedish-Mongol War . Swedes take advantage of weakened Mongols to expand east. Swedes conquer Rumania, Moldavia, and
1866-1873  Roman-Swedish tensions escalate into a border war. Rome is defeated by Swedish armies quickly concentrated by rail.
1873-1878  As Roman-Swedish conflict wears down, Byzantium attacks Sweden, conquering Roman territory in Austria occupied by Sweden. Conflict becomes general
1877          The Byzantines talk the Iberians into declaring on Rome, and the Norse on Sweden, while the Romans convince the Parthians to become involved. Mongols attack Parthia and Norse.
1878          Peace treaty, minor border changes, Rome gains Bosnia, Byzantium completes control of the Black Sea coast. The Norse and Swedes exchange provinces.

?

[snip]

I like the overall arc of that proposal. Couple detail points

1) I like the slow burn up to a general war between 1873-1878. The events of 1877 as listed might need to be slipped up to provide some length to the conflict.
2) The Iberians coming in against Rome is a little odd for what we have discussed about Iberian-Roman relations. I think it might be better cast as an Iberian refusal to directly help (They can still get some fighting in North Africa), thus sowing the seeds to doubt that Iberia might one day turn and open up a Pyrenean front during a larger conflict. Rome is fearful of what that particular Pandora's Box holds, and I think if its already been opened once a lot of the planning I have done goes flying out the window. I would rather not have that moment be pre-start.
3) I really like the idea of Rome getting a good Teutoburg Forest style whooping. Gives me a good reason to have moved some stuff away from Napoleonic era OTL French practices earlier than the first years of a WWI style conflict. Goodbye fancy red pants uniforms, you will not be missed.
4) I'm going to assume we at least have US Civil War era equipment in this war, which is nice as it gives enough exposure to what automatic weapons can do that I think we can justify armor development outside of a WWI style conflict.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Feel free to modify the details,
I simply had been considering if the final defeat of the Mongols might lead to a conflict in the east, and then you expressed a need for a general war...so ta da.
As for Iberia - I was tossing them in so they got to play too. 

In terms of technology, the original timeline saw a number of large changes in this period.
So a big general war in the 1870s would get to put most of these to good use :

1836 Revolvers start come into play
1842 Norse Kammerlader breechloading rifle adopted (Ferguson and Hall were earlier, but not continued)
1845 Metallic cartridge revolvers  become available
1848 'Needle' breechloading single-shot rifle accepted into Prussian service
1848/1854 The Minie ball was an extremely simple innovation that transformed rifles from specialist arms to main weapons.
1851 Revolvers become more common, changing how cavalry operates by drastically increasing short range firepower
1855-1873  Various 1st generation repeating rifles adopted for service - Colt Revolver, Henry, Spencer, Berdan, Winchester, etc

1858 Armstrong Guns - rifled breechloading artillery - started production, very effective, but some issues with lead and the breech. British reverted to muzzle loaders for various reasons.
1860s - variety of breech or muzzle loaded artillery introduced to compliment old smoothbores.
1861 Parrot rifled guns - muzzleloading, but the improved shell/rifling/reinforced breech allowed much greater penetration and much longer ranges.
1875 Lahitolle gun - interrupted screw introduced - solved the breech issues.
1880 First quickfire gun 1" Nordenfelt
1886 fist midsized QF gun - 47mm Hotchkiss

1860 US Civil War and 1866 Austro-Prussian War and 1872 Franco-Prussian war saw the widespread use of Railroads, and in the Prussian case, coordinated mobilization.
Telegraphs also became very important for long distance coordination.

In the naval realm, the Crimean war saw floating armored batteries, 1859 Gloire and 1861 [/i]Warrior[/i] introduced the ironclad warship. While the Civil war of course saw the Monitor, Hunley and naval mines.

[Walter]

1860-1866 Sixth Mongol-Norse War.  Norse assault the the weakened Mongols before them.

I had some ideas, but we never got discussed about beating up the Mongolians. As my history timeline is, the Mongolians are the aggressors during the Sixth Mongol-Norse War, not the Norse, and I want to keep it that way with the Mongols as aggressor as this gives me this list as to who is the aggressor in each of the Mongol-Norse wars:

1st: Northern Kingdom
2nd: Golden Horde
3rd: Northern Kingdom
4th: Golden Horde
5th: Northern Kingdom
6th: Golden Horde

... so that would mean that the next time war breaks out between the Northern Kingdom and the Golden Horde, it will need to be caused by Norse aggression.

1864-1878 Swedish-Mongol War .

I think that that is probably too long unless we were to add another Mongol-Norse War. The Norse would definitely try to take a whack at the Mongols in the 1875-1880 time frame if the Swedish-Mongol War were to last into the 1870s (as mentioned above, it would be the turn of the Northern Kingdom to be the attacker in the Seventh Mongol-Norse War).

The Byzantines talk the Iberians into declaring on Rome, and the Norse on Sweden

Well... if the Byzantine Empire were to accept Norse overlordship and the Byzantine ruler bends the knee to High King Olaf V, the Norse might think about it... otherwise I do not see that happen. Norse-Byzantine relations aren't/weren't good enough to achieve that. The Norse would be more likely trying to regain more of the bits of Novgorod lost to the Mongolians.

Goodbye fancy red pants uniforms, you will not be missed.

Would members of the Roman Army not be forced to wear a dead bird on their heads? :)

[Kaiser Kirk]

Hmm,
A) Mongol-Norse war- if Walter wants to be the defender, no problems.
B) I was outlining a sequence of a series of wars that kept dragging on, with the better trained and equipped Swedes slowly being worn down.  However, my goal was to provide a general European conflict and span the period of the Crimean war to the Russo-Ottoman war.
C )Iberia/Sweden : Well while the current relationships are 7s, this is ~40 years ago, and in both cases past conflicts are alluded too.  The Norse-Swedish relationship is described as a "7" now but also described as Rivals, you have long borders but a conflict is out of the question?
Edit : Prussia and Austria come to mind.  Austria and the Southern German Confederation fought Prussia in 1866, but were allied in WWI. 

So Who is ok to fight whom ?
Looking at the "I hate you" and scores of <5

Rome - Byzantium
Rome - Norse
Pathian - Byzantium
Norse - Rome
Byzantium - Sweden (Black sea)
Byzantium - Rome
Byzantium - Parthia.

Iberia and Sweden having no opinion at this time.
However no one dislikes Iberia - they have no opposing force to pan against. 
Only Byzantium has issue with Sweden, and they have no naval border, so they have no naval foe. 

[Jefgte]

I note in the actual map that Parthe is "out of the game" (Iberia-Roman-Norse)

I propose modifs in the map to have "Parthe in Mediterranee".

Give all Arabia, Sinaii & Egypte (Suez) to Parthe
Byzantine had Caspian sea & Aral sea coast.

I didnt made really choice for Koweit coast & Eilat harbor...Parthe or Byzantine(?)

I made quick modifs on the map...

[Jefgte]

Or this one with Byzantine & Parthe on the Persian Gulf...

[Kaiser Kirk]

Interesting Jefgte, thanks for taking the time to do the maps, it really helps understand what you're suggesting as a concept.


If the other players felt it was better for the game to have Parthia have direct access on the Med, perhaps something could be worked out.
It would entail a fair bit of adjustment on my part, but if it helps going forward, I'll consider it.

In terms of the two concepts floated :

A basic problem with both maps is the heart of Ancient Persia/Parthia is the western portion of Iran.
Both maps pretty much eliminate the heartland of my concept of Parthia.  That is not acceptable.

The second map appears to eliminate the holdings on Iranian plateau and basically create the Arabian Empire - interesting and if extended a tad south could become the Ethiopian Empire - which would actually make a decent NPC.

The first map is probably closer to something workable.
IF Parthia lost Baghdad in 1856, then there's no reason should could not have lost Basra and Kuwait - which would divide my nation.  I suppose at the same time I could also loose the northern Caucus.  Loosing Baku and the oil would be annoying, but Persia had it's own oil. 
Loosing more than that starts removing the heartland of my country.  That is not ok.

The addition of Egypt, Suez, and ports on the Med would be interesting, but I really haven't thought about that possible strategic picture.

Overall, unless there is strong feeling from others that there should be a change, I'd rather stick to my current set up, and not have to go back and redo both concepts and nation setup.
Oh, and I'd also want permission to dump all my set up points into armies and launch a quick land war.....


Currently, Parthia's Naval strategic interests are simple
1. Control the Indian Ocean
2. Be able to commerce raid beyond the Indian Ocean, and so have some international leverage
3. Be able to contain and repulse the Byzantine fleet in the Red Sea.

That basically means Byzantium is my "Opposing Force" and as we go forward I will be watching the development of that fleet to ensure I counter it's vessels.
From what I've seen, our prebuilds are quite divergent.

Now we could just alter the map to give Parthia the lands held by the Sassinids in 621AD - that has lands on the Med !!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_Empire#/media/File:Sassanian_Empire_621_A.D.jpg

[Jefgte]

Currently, Parthia's Naval strategic interests are simple
1. Control the Indian Ocean
2. Be able to commerce raid beyond the Indian Ocean, and so have some international leverage
3. Be able to contain and Repulse the Byzantine fleet in the Red Sea.

You just play with me...  ;)
What about Roman,Iberia, Norse ...you never play with us...   :-X  :-X  :-X

Well, what is your new strategy if you have Alexandry harbor & Egypte?

What is your drawing of the map if you have Egypte & Suez ?

[Walter]

Mongol-Norse war- if Walter wants to be the defender, no problems.

Well, I like the consistency of how it goes back and forth as to who the attacker is. An attack by the Northern Kingdom on the Mongols is definitely possible, especially if the Swedish-Mongol war lasts from 1864 to 1878. But then the question would be, what would be gained and/or what would be lost? As things are right now with the history of the Eastern border, the 1910 border is the same as the 1866 border. Seeing the successes of the 1860-1866 war and the fact that the Mongols are also fighting with the Swedish, It seems likely that territory would be gained from the weakened Mongols while little to no lands would be lost.

But that is my opinion.

Well while the current relationships are 7s, this is ~40 years ago, and in both cases past conflicts are alluded too.  The Norse-Swedish relationship is described as a "7" now but also described as Rivals, you have long borders but a conflict is out of the question?

Looks more like ~30 years ago. I think if a Norse-Swedish war happened then, it would be extremely generous to give the relation a 5 so it would more likely be a 4. I kinda feel that the "War Generation" of the Northern Kingdom needs to be gone for the relations to be better than 5 so you're probably looking at something like at least 50 or so years ago that any direct Norse-Swedish conflict would have taken place.

Under normal circumstances, I would think that the rivalry would be along the lines of "I can beat up the Mongols better than you" or "I can get more trade profits than you". Granted the rivalry could easily become "I can beat you up before you can beat me up" but talk is cheap and no amount of Byzantine words would be able to convince the Norse to attack the Swedish with their level of relationship. The Byzantine relationship with the Northern Kingdom isn't going to be any better than the Norse relation with the Swedish. Combine that with the fact that at that time (1877), the Swedish would be busy beating up the Mongols (a common enemy for the Norse and the Swedish), I would think that the chance of the Byzantines convincing the Norse to attack the Swedish is 0.01% while the chance of the Norse attacking the Mongols and trying to outdo the Swedish would be 95%...

... but looking at the years you listed and the events, there is one key event in your timeline which will prevent the Norse from ever (well at least the next 50 years or so) doing anything that the Byzantines ask...

1856-1859 Byzantium, threatened by Parthia's presence on the Black Sea, comes to the Mongol aid and launches the Crimean conflict.

... so the Byzantines helped out the enemy which means that the chance of the Byzantines convincing the Norse to attack the Swedish just dropped to -10% (i.e. "You want us to attack the Swedish? How about we attack you instead!").

So Who is ok to fight whom ?
Looking at the "I hate you" and scores of <5

Rome - Byzantium
Rome - Norse
Pathian - Byzantium
Norse - Rome
Byzantium - Sweden (Black sea)
Byzantium - Rome
Byzantium - Parthia.

Considering what Rome is (at least to the Norse), the last war between the Northern Kingdom and the Roman Empire could have been more than 1000 years ago and the relation score would still be at 1 4. :)

I was thinking a bit and on a couple of occasions, I had the Norse take on the roll of the English. Maybe the various Anglo-Spanish wars could be made Norse-Iberian wars here (after all they practice the evil form of Catholicism). From the looks of it, they are far enough back in time for the relations to come back up to the level that they are now.

I note in the actual map that Parthe is "out of the game" (Iberia-Roman-Norse)

They are "out of the game" for a European theater war... but you can also say that they are "out of the game" for a European theater war NOW. It is possible that 40 years ago, they were still clinging on to a few footholds in the Mediterranean and Red Sea which they lost to the Byzantines during the wars ~30 years ago which means they could have been involved in any kind of European conflict prior to that. Just an idea.

And while they may be "out of the game" for a war with most player nations, the Parthians can still dance with the Mongols, the nations in India (whatever they are; looking at the nations, Rajastan and Deccan?) as well as Ethiopia to a lesser degree (they should be close enough for the Parthians).

What about Roman,Iberia, Norse ...you never play with us...   :-X  :-X  :-X

The Norse are too far away... Maybe the Norse should send its forces to invade African and Asian lands to be much closer to you to play. Looks like there is a nice small piece of real estate (Socotra) just beyond the entrance to the Gulf of Aden which should become Norse and gives us an excellent opportunity to play. :D

[snip]

Im currently catching up on the rest of this thread but wanted to address the map questions before attempting to muddle through. Long story short is that the map will not be changing in the manner that Jef proposes as it really neuters Byzantium's ability to access colonial territory.

When I set out to create the rough outline of the map, I laid out a set of requirements for the sort of access that each nation would have to the seas at large. These requirements were used to ensure some measure of equality of access since the game was shaping up as a "Race for the Colonies" but with Steel ships. I wanted to avoid having situations where one power would be able to outright lock another out of access to that aspect of the game. I'm failing to locate my original documentation about this, but it went something like below.

A nation must have from all coastlines
--Unrestricted access to the open ocean via an unrestricted (wider than reasonable interdiction range from shore) path.
OR
--Restricted access to the open ocean not controlled by a single power.

A practical example of both of these is Roman territory. Rome has unrestricted access from the French coast but also has restricted access along the Med. Since Iberia controls one exit and the Byzantines control the other, Rome's access to the open ocean via the Med is not controlled by one power. Now all of this was done before I had any sort of idea of the diplomacy that would come about in the world. Even with the better idea of the diplomatic picture that we have today, both of Jef's maps violate the Restricted access part of the guidelines. In order to have Byzantium not in control of the Suez as proposed, but with territory along the Persian Gulf, Byzantium must then control the Strait of Hormuz outright. This does not co-exist with having Parthia be where it is. Therefore to meet the guidelines the only reasonable option is to have Byzantium control the Suez.

[Walter]

Looked around a bit at some wars and added them to a simple Norse War timeline. Some are OTL wars involving England/Great Britain with another nation, a few are OTL wars involving Norway with another nation and a few are OTL wars involving Russian with another nation. This is not a definitive timeline as it would require approval from other players but it is there to give some idea of (possible) conflicts involving the Northern Kingdom with other nations. With the addition of the Rosekrigene, I also altered the list of Northern rulers a bit to fit that war.

List of Wars:
937-1066: Viking invasions of England.
1048–1064: Invasions of Denmark.
1066-1088: Norwegian conquest of Northern Britain.
1096-1099: First Crusade. Against Byzantine Empire.
1098-1098: First Irish Sea Campaign. Against Irish.
1101-1103: Second Irish Sea Campaign. Against Irish.
1107-1111: Norwegian Crusade. Against Saracens.
1145-1149: Second Crusade. Against Byzantine Empire.
1173-1174: Revolt of 1173–74. Revolt against Haakon II by three of his sons and his wife.
1189–1192: Third Crusade. Against Byzantine Empire.
1202–1204: Fourth Crusade. Against Roman Empire.
1215–1217: First Barons' War. Revolt against Erik II of Norway by rebellious major landowners.
1264–1267: Second Barons' War. Revolt against Svein I of Norway by barons.
1285-1293: First Mongol-Norse war.
1288–1295: War of the Outlaws. Against Denmark.
1296–1328: Scottish War of Independence.
1321–1322: The Despenser War. Revolt against Olaf IV of Norway by barons.
1455-1485: Fourth Mongol-Norse war.
1455-1487: Rosekrigene (Wars of the Roses). War between the Telemark and Hedmark branches of House Hardrada.
1495-1497: First Norse-Swedish War
1526-1530: War of the League of Cognac. Against Iberia.
1554–1557: Ivan the Terrible's Swedish War. Against Sweden.
1563–1570: First Northern War. Against Denmark.
1569-1573: First Desmond Rebellion. Revolt against Magnus VII of Norway by the FitzGeralds of Desmond.
1579-1583: Second Desmond Rebellion. Revolt against Magnus VII of Norway by the FitzGeralds of Desmond.
1585–1604: First Norse-Iberian War.
1590–1595: Boris Godunov's Swedish War. Against Sweden.
1611–1613: Kalmar War. Against Sweden.
1625–1630: Second Norse-Iberian War.
1643–1645: Torstenson War. Against Sweden.
1652–1654: First Norse-Dutch War.
1654–1660: Third Norse-Iberian War.
1655–1660: Second Northern War.
1665-1667: Second Norse-Dutch War.
1666-1669: Fifth Mongol-Norse war.
1668–1676: Solovetsky Monastery uprising. Revolt against Aleksey I of Novgorod by Old Believer monks.
1672-1674: Third Norse-Dutch War.
1682-1682: First Streltsy Rebellion. Revolt against Pyotr I of Novgorod by the Novgorod Streltsy regiments.
1698-1698: Second Streltsy Rebellion. Revolt against Pyotr I of Novgorod by the Novgorod Streltsy regiments.
1701–1713: The War of the Iberian Succession.
1700–1721: The Great Northern War. Against Sweden.
1727–1729: Fourth Norse-Iberian War.
1739–1748: The War of Jenkins' Ear. Against Iberia.
1762–1763: Fifth Norse-Iberian War.
1779–1783: Sixth Norse-Iberian War.
1788–1790: Catherine the Great's Swedish War. Against Sweden.
1796–1808: Seventh Norse-Iberian War.
1807–1814: Gunboat War. Against Sweden.
1825-1825: Decembrist revolt. Revolt against Nicholas I of Novgorod by Decembrists.
1833-1839: First Carlist War. Supporting forces of Queen Isabella II against Forces of Infante Carlos.
1860-1866: Sixth Mongol-Norse War.

Adjusted list of Rulers of Norway/the Northern Kingdom. Names in green are different from the original line of rulers while King Johan I is now a Son of Rikard ("Rikardsson") instead of a Son of Gustav ("Gustavsson").

Kings of Norway
Harald I Halfdansson (850-932) ----------------- 872-930 ------ Harald Fairhair
Eric I Haraldsson (885-954) -------------------- 931-933 ------ Eric Bloodaxe
Haakon I Haraldsson (920–961) ------------------ 934-961 ------ Haakon the Good
Harald II Greycloak (-970) --------------------- 961-970 ------
Harald "Blåtand" Gormsson (935-985) ------------ 970-986 ------
Olaf I Tryggvason (960s – 1000) ---------------- 995-1000 -----
Sweyn Haraldsson (960-1014) -------------------- 986-1014 ----- Sweyn Forkbeard
Olaf II Haraldsson (995–1030) ------------------ 1015-1028 ---- Saint Olaf
Knut Sweynsson (995-1035) ---------------------- 1028-1035 ---- Knut the Great
Magnus Olafsson (1024-1047) -------------------- 1035-1047 ---- Magnus the Good

Kings of Norway and the Norse Kingdom (House of Hardrada)
Harald III Sigurdsson (1015-1089) -------------- 1046-1089 ---- Harald Hardrada
Olaf III Haraldsson (1050-1093) ---------------- 1089-1093 ---- Olaf Kyrre
Haakon (II) Magnusson (1069-1095) -------------- 1093-1094 ---- Haakon Toresfostre
Magnus II Olafsson (1073-1103) ----------------- 1093-1103 ---- Magnus Barefoot
Olaf (IV) Magnusson (1098-1115) ---------------- 1103-1115 ----
Eystein I Magnusson (1088-1123) ---------------- 1103-1123 ----
Sigurd I Magnusson (1090-1130) ----------------- 1103-1130 ---- Sigurd the Crusader
Magnus III Sigurdsson (1115-1155) -------------- 1130-1155 ---- Magnus the Blind
Haakon II Sigurdsson (1117-1189) --------------- 1155-1181 ----
Harald IV Haakonsson (1139-1191) --------------- 1181-1191 ----
Erik II Haraldsson (1166-1234) ----------------- 1191-1243 ----
Svein I Eriksson (1195-1266) ------------------- 1243-1266 ----
Haakon III Sveinsson (1222-1280) --------------- 1266-1280 ----
Filip I Haakonsson (1246-1281) ----------------- 1280-1281 ----
Eystein II Haakonsson (1247-1283) -------------- 1281-1283 ----
Fredrik I Haakonsson (1250-1311) --------------- 1283-1311 ---- Fredrik Langbein
Edvard I Fredriksson (1284-1327) --------------- 1311-1327 ----
Edvard II Edvardsson (1312-1377) --------------- 1327-1377 ----
Rikard I Edvardsson (1367-1400) ---------------- 1377-1399 ----

Kings of Norway and the Norse Kingdom (House of Hardrada, Hedmark branch)
Henrik I Johansson (1367-1413) ----------------- 1399-1413 ----
Henrik II Henriksson (1386-1422) --------------- 1413-1422 ----
Henrik III Henriksson (1421-1471) -------------- 1422-1461 ----

King of Norway and the Norse Kingdom (House of Hardrada, Telemark branch)
Edvard III Rikardsson (1442-1483) -------------- 1461-1470 ----

King of Norway and the Norse Kingdom (House of Hardrada, Hedmark branch, restored)
Henrik III Henriksson (1421-1471) -------------- 1470-1471 ----

Kings of Norway and the Norse Kingdom (House of Hardrada, Telemark branch, restored)
Edvard III Rikardsson (1442-1483) -------------- 1471-1483 ----
Edvard IV Edvardsson (1470-1483) --------------- 1483-1483 ----
Rikard II Rikardsson Hardrada (1452-1518) ------ 1483-1518 ----
Johan I Rikardsson Hardrada (1485-1544) -------- 1518-1544 ----

Kings of Norway and the Norse Kingdom (House of Hardrada, unity restored)
Karl I Johansson Hardrada (1511-1561) ---------- 1544-1561 ----
Filip II Karlsson Hardrada (1537-1562) --------- 1561-1562 ----
Stenkil I Karlsson Hardrada (1538-1566) -------- 1562-1566 ----
Magnus V Karlsson Hardrada (1550-1594) --------- 1566-1594 ----
Erik II Magnusson Hardrada (1565-1631) --------- 1594-1631 ----
Fredrik II Eriksson Hardrada (1599-1666) ------- 1631-1666 ----
Karl II Fredriksson Hardrada (1631-1692) ------- 1666-1692 ----
Kristian I Karlsson Hardrada (1655-1701) ------- 1692-1701 ----

Queen of Norway and the Norse Kingdom (House of Hardrada)
Estrid I Kristiansdotter Hardrada (1676-1759) -- 1701-1703 ----

High Kings of Norway, Ireland, Scotland, Iceland and Novgorod (House of Hardrada)
Sigurd II Kristiansson Hardrada (1678-1725) ---- 1703-1725 ----
Erik III Svensson Hardrada (1702-1766) --------- 1725-1766 ----
Haakon IV Eriksson Hardrada (1733-1799) -------- 1766-1799 ----
Knut II Haakonsson Hardrada (1759-1842) -------- 1799-1842 ----
Magnus VI Knutsson Hardrada (1781-1855) -------- 1842-1855 ----
Svein II Magnusson Hardrada (1804-1868) -------- 1855-1868 ----
Olaf IV Sveinsson Hardrada (1840-1901) --------- 1868-1901 ----
Harald V Olafsson Hardrada (1865-1905) --------- 1901-1905 ----
Gunnar I Haraldsson Hardrada (1885-1909) ------- 1905-1909 ----

[Kaiser Kirk]

Looked around a bit at some wars and added them to a simple Norse War timeline. Some are OTL wars involving England/Great Britain with another nation, a few are OTL wars involving Norway with another nation and a few are OTL wars involving Russian with another nation. This is not a definitive timeline as it would require approval from other players but it is there to give some idea of (possible) conflicts involving the Northern Kingdom with other nations. With the addition of the Rosekrigene, I also altered the list of Northern rulers a bit to fit that war.

I am envious that you have managed so much.
I have bit and pieces of such things.
However my time looks more free going forward than it has been most of the year.

[Walter]

It helps when the info is available on wiki, although it did take some puzzling to figure out how everyone was related with the Wars of the Roses and then fit it into my own line of rulers so I could include the Rosekrigene in the Norse timeline.