Crusader Kings 2 Redux

[jimmy olsen]

I have a hard time understanding why anybody would voluntarily have elective monarchy. I know it makes the vassals happy, but they tend to give the kingdom away to people who are not me.

Denmark starts with an elective monarchy and since you have a zillion family members it is no big deal since a member of the dynasty will almost always be King.  It also takes alot of time and effort to make it something that is not an elective monarchy (or gavelkind).  Ergo even though it was a stupid stupid idea to get additional King titles, meaning that even though all the titles stayed in the family they went to different members of the family.

I just cannot resist creating the titles.

If they're your family members it's not that big a problem long term. Denmark itself is small, just work towards making Denmark's succession law Senority and it will all come back to you eventually.

[Faeelin]

Are there any examples of seniority? Seems a bit weird.

[Faeelin]

One of Paradox's posters made an interesting point. We treat the Byzantines as an empire, even though for much of the gamespan they just ruled the Aegaean.  But many English kings styled themselves kings of Britain; why don't we take their title seriously?

[Martinus]

Are there any examples of seniority? Seems a bit weird.

What do you mean? Like, historical examples?

[Viking]

Are there any examples of seniority? Seems a bit weird.

Saudi Arabia

[Valmy]

One of Paradox's posters made an interesting point. We treat the Byzantines as an empire, even though for much of the gamespan they just ruled the Aegaean.  But many English kings styled themselves kings of Britain; why don't we take their title seriously?

Who styled themselves that in this era?

That does not strike me as a particularly interesting point.

[Viking]

One of Paradox's posters made an interesting point. We treat the Byzantines as an empire, even though for much of the gamespan they just ruled the Aegaean.  But many English kings styled themselves kings of Britain; why don't we take their title seriously?

Who styled themselves that in this era?

That does not strike me as a particularly interesting point.

I think all the english kings between the harrowing of the north and bannockburn considered themselves overlords of scotland.

Æthelstan of Northumbria styled himself totius rex Brittanniae

[Martinus]

Are there any examples of seniority? Seems a bit weird.

Saudi Arabia

Poland had Seniority rule from 1138 until about the middle of the 13th century. During that time, there would be a hereditary/primogeniture Prince/Duke in each Duchy, but the Polish Crown and the Duchy of Lesser Poland would go to the oldest of the Piast dynasty.

[Valmy]

I think all the english kings between the harrowing of the north and bannockburn considered themselves overlords of scotland.

Æthelstan of Northumbria styled himself totius rex Brittanniae

I know it was a title tossed around during Anglo-Saxon days but that is pre this era.

And while there was some assertion that the Scottish King was a vassal of the English King but they were pretty flexible with that.  Plenty of times they negotiated with the Scottish King as an equal and even when they didn't they usually did not do anything to get the Scots pissed off.  And Edward I's plot and Edward II blowing it was an aberration, a dramatic shift for the worse, in Anglo-Scot relations not something typical of what happened from the Harrowing to Bannockburn.

So it is sort of like the Holy Roman Emperor sorta kinda claiming overlordship of all of Catholicism.  Yes he did claim that, technically, but he still does not get de jure rights over all of Catholic Europe.

[Martim Silva]

Have any of you noticed in your games high-ranking lieges getting jailed willy-nilly by nobodies?

In a game as the count of Melgueill, I got an event where the chancellor was eyeing my wife. I complained to the Duke of Toulouse (mine and his liege), the Duke heard me and ordered the Chancellor arrested... as a result, the Duke was thrown in the Chancellor's dungeon!

In other game, I saw that Mathilda of Tuscany was in dungeon of the mayor of Brescia (without ever been at war with him), two Popes died in their mayors' jails, the King of Navarre was jailed by a mayor, and now the King of Castille was released from the dungeon... of a random courtier who doesn't even own land!

WTF?

[Valmy]

 

No I have never noticed that.  But then I usually do not go and see who is imprisoned and by whom.

[garbon]

I think all the english kings between the harrowing of the north and bannockburn considered themselves overlords of scotland.

Æthelstan of Northumbria styled himself totius rex Brittanniae

I know it was a title tossed around during Anglo-Saxon days but that is pre this era.

And while there was some assertion that the Scottish King was a vassal of the English King but they were pretty flexible with that.  Plenty of times they negotiated with the Scottish King as an equal and even when they didn't they usually did not do anything to get the Scots pissed off.  And Edward I's plot and Edward II blowing it was an aberration, a dramatic shift for the worse, in Anglo-Scot relations not something typical of what happened from the Harrowing to Bannockburn.

So it is sort of like the Holy Roman Emperor sorta kinda claiming overlordship of all of Catholicism.  Yes he did claim that, technically, but he still does not get de jure rights over all of Catholic Europe.

I do think it would be better, if they introduced these new Empires, if they were made titular only with the opportunity of owned territories becoming a de jure part.  Unfortunately though that'd obscure how they could be formed - I guess.

[Faeelin]

I know it was a title tossed around during Anglo-Saxon days but that is pre this era.

And while there was some assertion that the Scottish King was a vassal of the English King but they were pretty flexible with that.  Plenty of times they negotiated with the Scottish King as an equal and even when they didn't they usually did not do anything to get the Scots pissed off.  And Edward I's plot and Edward II blowing it was an aberration, a dramatic shift for the worse, in Anglo-Scot relations not something typical of what happened from the Harrowing to Bannockburn.

Aethelstan was only a little over a hundred years before the game starts. And a few centuries later, Longshanks tries to conquer Scotland as well and destroy the kingdom. I don't know why he's less a basileus than the Byzantines.

That both English monarchs and Spanish monarchs called themselves emperors suggests it wasn't just an HRE thing.

Interesting use of the title in Spain too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator_totius_Hispaniae#Eleventh_century.

[Valmy]

Aethelstan was only a little over a hundred years before the game starts. And a few centuries later, Longshanks tries to conquer Scotland as well and destroy the kingdom. I don't know why he's less a basileus than the Byzantines.

That both English monarchs and Spanish monarchs called themselves emperors suggests it wasn't just an HRE thing.

Interesting use of the title in Spain too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator_totius_Hispaniae#Eleventh_century.

I have been over this many times.  The reason both the HRE and ERE are Empires is because of their claims to Universality that were well established in the laws of the time but were also built into the ideologies of the respective monarchies.  Not only that but they were recognized as such by their peers in their respective religions.  Is there any reference to, say, the King of Denmark calling the King of England Emperor?  Of course not.  Not even the Scots considered any of them as such.  Self-proclaimed is not going to cut it.

And yes I am aware at one point one guy claimed to be Emperor of Spain, it is only brought up every single time this conversations happens.  But that title was not even passed down to his heirs and nobody else called him that I am aware of.  So how exactly should that be modeled in the game?  A guy gets a lifetime title that does not pass on to his heirs?  Huh?

[Faeelin]

Except as the link points out, he is not one of a kind.

As Parliament under Henry VIII declared, "Where by divers sundry old authentic histories and chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king, having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial crown of the same."

This is a little more than one hundred years after the game's end. Apparently powerful English monarchs calling themselves emperor a century before and a century after the period are not signs of any continuous thoughts.