Earliest you've seen a nation wiped out?

[baligant]

I pose this question as I'm playing as Danmaurk and in the year 1190, I got a message saying that the Scottish nation was completely wiped out. I'm playing the main campaign with civ style on.

In looking at how it occurred, the Scottish king died of natural causes and tanaiste was attacking Inverness and evidently died in the fight. Seumus (the younger son) was taking on the fort just south of Edinburgh where the rebel king is stationed in area. The turn before he was sieging the fort then the very next turn is when got the notice. By far the earliest I've seen without being directly involved.

England had taken York but had no standing armies outside of city

So has anybody seen anything earlier or before 1200?

[Morty]

That is pretty early, by far way earlier than my experiences. Assuming non player involvement.

Morty

[Kjertesvein]

That is pretty early, by far way earlier than my experiences. Assuming non player involvement.

[baligant]

Corrected date as was 1190 and yeah, not involved.

I did have a question though. This will be a complete noob question but they haven't resurfaced. I've seen hordes break forth in prior games but haven't seen the Scots resurface and I'm in 1195. If they lost all family members (only 3 at beginning of game), are they wiped out for good, or has not enough time elapsed?

[Morty]

Hordes only appear under certain conditions. If the leader and heir die in the same turn (there are no other family members to step up) and the faction still has at least one settlement the faction will not horde. They will simply become rebel.

I often go out of my way to create conditions so that hordes do not appear. As an example in my English campaign, turn 120 or so I have killed off the Scots, Irish and Flemish. None of those factions horded due to the manner in which I finished them off. Hordes are unrealistic and unhistoric in my opinion nor to my liking.

Example:

I had Waterford when hostilities started (me as the English). I sacked Cork and moved towards Galloway focusing on killing his family members in the field where possible. While I was fighting in Galloway province I killed the leader who then showed up at Dublin. After sacking Galloway (killing the heir) the new heir showed up at Dublin (probably due to an adoption). I immediately made haste to cut off the leader + heir at Dublin by moving my armies to Dublin province. The new capital was Tir Chronail. This kept them bottled up in Dublin but more importantly together. They did not want to fight me in the field yet.

As I was gathering forces for a siege on Dublin a new family member appeared in Tir Chronail (princess marriage, since she was there the turn before). This new family member fielded an army and headed my way. {I thought about why he chose me vs. attacking Galloway and the only conclusion that makes sense is that he thought my field army would be easier to take on vs. sieging Galloway} He lost and died and in the same turn I brought up a half stack with arty from Waterford, combined forces then insta sieged Dublin by using 2 ballista. The leader and heir both died and there were no more family members. Tir Chronail became rebel and the Irish were destroyed with no horde. If Dublin had been their last and only holding when I sieged it the Irish would have horded even though they had no family members. (which is a perfect example of why I don't like hordes)

Morty

[Kjertesvein]

I can wipe out the crusaders in 2 turns as Egypt.

[Xtiaan72]

Hordes are unrealistic and unhistoric in my opinion nor to my liking.

Tell that to William Wallace!