De jure in the context of the game =/= de jure in the context of law or tradition.
Nice try but 'de iure' is a fixed expression that has a certain meaning. You use the code word 'de iure' to invoke that coded meaning. It poses no value to you if openly say that you're using a non-standard definition.
You can use any word you want for anything you want but as long as you use the excuse that you understand the world differently, you cannot claim the benefit of the normal understanding.
For a CK/EU example, you can't be a duke and call yourself king and say, "oh, in our language or culture this is just the word for duke," (therefore you are not "guilty" of using an unsubstantiated royal title) while insisting that you get translated as king and awarded royal protocolar perks during diplomatic meetings. This would be having a cake and eating it. Same way, you can't use the phrase "de iure" like normal but only ever claim a nonstandard understanding when someone criticises the inclusion of some things in the category that you realise the normal understanding wouldn't cover.
CK2 is supposed to start in a real 1066, not in a 1066 that has already been affected by alternative history. We are not officially starting from some guy's alternative vision of Europe (like in an alternative history novel where everything is like normal except that the Western Roman Empire never crumbled and it exists in 1066, similarly to those films in which there are no fantasy elements per se but e.g. the Nazis won WW2).
They should probably just rename de jure to something else. What? I don't know, but people sure seem upset by them adding in empires to shoot for.
Basically, de iure kingdom, duchy etc. means the relevant kingdom, duchy or whatever else it is, in a shape given to it by the law (or "right", basically some highly respected custom), as opposed to the de facto reality of this or that noble controlling this or that position (the latter being the reality of your everyday basic map from which you go about your daily business, issue most commands etc.).
It seems important to me to note that it would not work very well for these new empires to be titular, they are based on specific geographic locations with difficult criteria for creation. That is a lot harder than the requirements for most of the titular titles I have seen.
I believe the proper place could be in decisions/intrigue, kinda like it was in EU3 if my memory serves me well.
And what a bunch of whiny babies they are. Im sorry but it just had to be said by someone. Nothing is forcing anyone to create empires if they dont want to.
If you really are an educated historian as you say, then you just cannot be ignorant of the "de iure" vs "de facto" differentiation or the issue of legal borders of "states" (polities, more like, as far as the middle ages are concerned) versus whatever the current political reality is.
It is also a bad testimony to your method of discussion or the attention you pay if it is said one million times that the problem is not the creatability of those empires but rather their existince on the de iure map, and you still react with a, 'you don't need to create those empires.'
The whole "its a-historical" argument is just a bunch of nonsense. If i want a history lesson im not gonna be playing computer games, im gonna research history, bare in mind that im an eduacated historian irl.
Gameplay goes way before realism for me in all cases.
Nobody says the game "has" to be historical. The game basically has to go either way: EITHER better or worse reconstruction & alternative history from a real historical start (which is the "selling proposition" of EU and all of its offspring, including CK2), OR a semi-fantasy game loosely based on mediaeval Europe, where you just play with the mechanics. The problem with where CK2 is going right now is that on the one hand you have meticulous reconstruction of who held the smallest holding in the most backyard part of the world but on the other hand you have fantasy stuff like a de iure "Empire of Scandinavia" (let alone Francia etc.).
More mapmodes would be a very welcome addition though, i would really like to see a vassal map modes where you can see all the different duchies of an empire (this is kinda annoying to me in GoT mod where you can only see kingdoms)
It would be cool to have a way to spot all the creatable titular titles.
You are the ones making a fool out of yourselves for telling other people how you think they should play their games. Some players like to conquer lands and form empires and for those who dont they can skip the entire feature. There are times when i feel that history helps alot with the setting but in this case i couldnt care less about historical reasons since it doesnt the break immersion at all.
I believe you said something along the lines of, "you don't have to form those empires." So you're basically telling people to shut up and ignore those empires, as in abstain from forming them. That is not an optimal solution for many reasons.
Thank you for being rude! It was just the kind of attitude that I was looking for in the discussion.
I do have a clue as to what I am talking about. I am not an expert on medieval history but I am not clueless. I did look into the subject before posting.
I did some further reading and have found several instances of temporal leaders proclaiming them Emperor of this place or that, not Emperor of the Romans or of Rome but of whatever area they ruled. None of them kept the titles for very long, but that's not the point. Just because Translatio imperii allowed for the transfer of the old Roman Emperor title does not mean that they were the only people to have the title of Emporer. Convention =/= hard law. And the Papacy, while incredibly powerful, was not ALL powerful and could not control everything every christian king did. Sometimes they had to adapt.
It would be cool to have a mechanic reflecting that. Creating empires via events or titular creation would be cool. Putting up a fiction that there is a legally or customarily distinct Empire of Scandinavia or Francia that's waiting for somebody to resurrect it is not really optimal here.
Empire is a tier of titles in the game. The Golden Horde is an Empire. The Caliphates are Empires. In the game anyway, it is what a ruler who can have king tier title holders as vassals are called.
Tier is one thing, title does matter too. I don't have a problem with a baptised Khagan changing to Emperor or with a Caliphate functioning on the empire engine. I could probably get along with High Kings (although I think high kings should still be "vassalisable" by emperors). Preconceived de iure Empire of Francia in 1066, however, is a different matter.
Now you are just mincing words. What is alternative history? It is fiction. History is the record of what happened in the past. Alternative history is ahistorical, in that it did not happen.
Alternative history is a specific kind of fiction that consists in taking a real point in history and diverting history in a fictional direction from that point. In EU and derived games you're supposed to be creating that alternative history from Day 1 in your game. But you're not supposed to be already starting in a heavily tweaked, fictionalised world. (And if there were a fantasy edition of CK2, openly referred to as such, I'd probably buy and enjoy it.)
But when you get right down too it all comes down how the changes affect your gameplay. Do you want to form a new empire? Go for it! Do you not want to? Then don't. If the AI does it then either it is a once in a long while fluke, or the changes are not working as intended and you can submit a bug report. It is a single player game, and the multiplayer aspect already has unofficial 'rules' to prevent things like this. I have a sneaking suspicion that most multiplayer games will ban the formation of new empires.
I don't mind the ability to form those empires per se. An "Empire of Francia" on the actual game map some time in 1157 or 1226 or whatever, arising as a course of events in a unique game run is much less offensive to me than a de iure Empire of Francia on the starting de iure map in 1066. It would actually be easier for me to tolerate the empire on the de iure map once it got created by some AI and started acting on the political map. So, paradoxically, once some AI actually formed it, it would then become much easier on my eyes (than when it exists unformed on the de iure map).
If one does not want to make ahistoric empires, one does not have to. I don't understand why people are getting upset about something that, if they don't want to be a part of their game, has very little to no chance of affecting their game at all.
It affects my game a lot because it defines huge swaths of land all over Europe as belonging to a fictional de iure empire that is only waiting for an emperor to turn the law or custom into fact by claiming and holding the crown. It messes up my entire de iure empires map by bundling the HRE and the ERE (which already have questionable de iure borders but let's not go there right now) with a number of fictional equals.
The AI has almost no chance of being able to form any of these Empires, and their being De Jure doesn't matter at all if they don't exist.
Again, I don't care if the AI can or cannot form them. This does not effect my experience of "de iure-ness" in this game. I'm totally okay with being able to call yourself "Imperator of all the Celts in the World" via gameplay events. Or "Imperator of Neopatras" if you move the capital from Constantinople (i.e. Byzantium). I'm not okay with the implication that Empire of Francia is a preconceived political/legal idea in a 1066 reconstruction. Even SCA/renfair style.
You keep stating your narrow opinion of only the HRE and ERE being allowed to exist as if its fact. A Spanish Empire within this timeframe is not fantasy / "alternative history":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator_totius_Hispaniae
Your didactic ranting and statement that for an Empire of Spain to exist HRE must be refused is facile.
WIKI: Imperator totius Hispaniae is a Latin title meaning "Emperor of all Spain". In Spain in the Middle Ages, the title "emperor" (from Latin imperator) was used under a variety of circumstances from the ninth century onwards, but its usage peaked, as a formal and practical title, between 1086 and 1157. It was primarily used by the Kings of León and Castile, but it also found currency in the Kingdom of Navarre and was employed by the Counts of Castile and at least one Duke of Galicia. It signalled at various points the king's equality with the Byzantine Emperor and Holy Roman Emperor"
Excuse me if I dont take your word for it Nuril
It was a title that actually had some currency but at least in my opinion the formation of it in real life history reflected a titular title more than a de iure title in CK2 categories. In plain English: dude took a title and started assimilating stuff into it.
Also, "Imperator Totius Hispaniae" was a device to mark superiority over other kings in Spain, whose titles appeared later, were less prestigious, had less legitimacy than Leon or Asturias. Asserting equality with the Holy Roman Emperor in the Catholic world (let alone exclusion of Spain from the Romanitas that would recognise the at least honorary supremacy of the Roman Emperor) would be a whole different task of greater difficulty. Running it through the Byzantines could pose similar problems.
Again, I'm all for the ability to become Imperator Totius Hispaniae in CK2. I'm against Spain being represented as an empire just because it was a large peninsula that got divided by several minor kings starting from one kingdom (not from an empire, of Spain at least). Using the same rationale one could make every Gaelic count in a Gaelic province a king and create an empire there to reflect the room for unity under a mightier ruler.
That title had just as much legitimate weight and recognition by his peer as title Emperor of Central Africa.
More, actually. Including papal recognition and shoving off the HRE's lawsuit regarding the matter. But it was still a titular creation by some guy at some point, not some big preconceived political idea (one Spain sure, Empire? nope).
IMHO there'd be nothing wrong with players having some feasible way of upgrading their titles – even creating a custom-named empire (or kingdom) once you fulfil some conditions (historically sensible would be preferred, this does not mean "historically accurate" because there is no such thing when we are speculating by definition; but feasible in the sense of keeping some boundaries/relevance, e.g. papal approval, prestige/piety requirement). The entire problem here is the "de iure" thing. I'm pretty sure everybody can live with de iure titles (along with the ability to assimilate vassals de iure) much more easily. Creatability itself reflects what you can do. "De iure" reflects some preconceived ideas that supposedly exist when you start the game. And the Empire of Francia does not exist as a preconceived idea in 1066.
Enjoy is totally wrong; again IMHO both camps are telling the other what is supposed to be fun. Yeah we don't really like the current direction, but IMHO we have been positive critical fans; only giving applause without comment isn't helpful either. Anyway my point is that people give comments, because they give about the game.
In this debate we all do, calling names for any group in this thread is rather foolish; we disagree on the direction, but we both love the game.
I'm not really talking about what's supposed to be fun. I understand that putting a couple of fictional empires in a 1066 Europe can make for a fun game for a lot of people. I just believe it belongs in mods or Ruler-Designer-style tweaks where a player consciously chooses to alter the starting history.
Not as a balance tweak in a game the unique value of which consists in "freeing up" the history of the world (or part of it) at some historical point so that the player (and the AI) can take it in his own hands.
Anyway in vanilla we have to, but any of you wouldn't like any change disliked by you and if it feels like, it was forced, upon (even if it really isn't), you wouldn't like it either. This is what we in the Netherlands would call 'rubbing salt in the wounds'
Yeah, it does feel wrong to have fiction "forced" on you that way in a historical reconstruction/alternative history game that's supposed to meet some threshold of approximate accuracy (with a lot of things being simplified, some things being tweaked, other things being simply wrong, but not really huge chunks of fiction... and an Empire of Francia is a huge chunk of fiction on the de iure map).
I think it's up to developers incude more empires or not. From my personal perspective I dont like empire of rusia,
Yeah. We can argue that the major grand princes controlled a lot of land but it's not like they were powerful enough to go out and play the betters of the actual kings of neighbouring kingdoms. An Empire of Russia could end up vassalising those kingdoms by pressing claimants from its own dynasty (after easily seeing Medium/High/Absolute authority throughout Russia, bringing all the countless dukes under tight control). So instead of a lucky prince/duke on steroids, given the imperial tier to reflect his real power and oomph more accurately in the game mechanics, we would have a real emperor capable of claiming superiority over Kings of Poland, Hungary, Sweden, whatever. So, basically, a Russian Empire would be a real empire, not a figure for Grand Princes of Whatever ("Whatever" being a different centre of power in different periods, which could obviously end up being completely different in a player's own game).
On the other hand, I believe Kingdom of Rus as a de iure Kingdom is actually okay. There was a sense of unity. There was at least one crowned king among the Russian princes. They did eventually put forth a claim to something higher than princehood. They were referred to as kings in early chronicles before the West conceived the idea that tribal rulers of pagan or post-pagan East Europe should be referred to as princes/dukes and below the king tier. So it's okay. And I probably would complain about Kiev or Novgorod being represented as kings in certain historical game starts (early, powerful, before GH).
but can accept empire of Spain.
Far stretch but better than Francia, I guess.
Speaking about emperors even Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas is refered as Basileus Litvania in some Byzanines documents after he dealt with Golden Horde in 1362 or 63 dont remember exactlty. He freed Kiev form these saveges as reported by Byzantines.
Basileus was a generic word for king. The Greeks of the Eastern Roman Empire started using that word for the Roman Emperors regardless that until some point Emperors avoided the impression of being kings due to Rome's historical circumstances. Western kings were referred to as "rigas", a Greek version of "rex", by them (while it wouldn't have been incorrect for a westerner to use the word "basileus" to describe his king when using Greek strictly as a language, in abstract from Byzantium's pretences). But before, even the tiny local tribal leader of an ancient Greek polis was a basileus (e.g. the mythical kings of Thebae, Mycaenae, Argos etc., not just big shots like Agamemnon) and there was absolutely no reason to deny the seven kings of Rome (before the republic) the title. The Byzantine court was simply being a bit less than consistent or logical. As for Algirdas, I suppose the Byzantines needed a word big enough to fit the extent of his power and so it ended up being Basileus. They were normally much more anxious about the title. Perhaps the fact that Algirdas was pagan (there are some assertions of his baptism but they don't find much corroboration) eased matters. It would have been much more difficult for a Christian ruler to get the title of Basileus from the Byzantines in correspondence.
Please note that Jogaila (Jagiello, Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland) entered the Christian monarchical family as a Grand Duke, which was the title of Vytautas, even as a vassal of Jogaila. I understand the Grand Duchy being a kingdom in the game but an empire would be a stretch. There was actually a point in early 15th century history when both Kiev and Novgorod were ruled by vassals of Jagiello (whose highest title was king), with borders running like 100 kilometres from Moscow, but that didn't make him an emperor, either.
First of all, calling an ethnic group "savages" is really, really offensive. Secondly, the Russian empire is really the only one that makes sense, because historically the Russian "empire" was created as a successor to Byzantium. If I leave any of these alone when modding, it would probably be the Russian one. I'll probably just put in some creation clause making it so no one has the Byzantine title before you can create it.
It doesn't. In Patch 1.06, the Russian Empire will enter as a de iure empire in 1066 (not owned by anybody, presumably). At that point Byzantium was doing well.
On the other hand, the "third Rome" thing originated after 1469, which is the date when Grand Prince
Ivan III married Zoe Palaiologina, daughter of Thomas (himself titled emperor of Constantinople), brother of the last ruling emperor, Constantine XI (the latter having died in 1453 which is when CK2 stops, to state the obvious). The Grand Princes initially claimed (and with varying success) the title of "tzar", generally being believed to be equivalent to the western title of king. The use of the imperial title really began in 1721 under
Peter the Great and recognition was limited. That was something between the "third Rome" pretence and more modern ideas. Muuuch different from a 1066 de iure empire of Russia (at which point, obviously, there is no third Rome or anything).