Yes after all one way of looking at the creation of the HRE was that it was created when someone combined the titles of King of France, Burgundy and Germany.Originally Posted by DarthJF
In a simillar way when your King gets too big for his boots there should be some way to celebrate it.
Non Angelus Sed Anglus
The Barcelona-based Sport: 'Football punishes Barca - Unjust, cruel, horrible, unmerited. Any adjective is not enough to define the incredible elimination of Barca at the hands of Chelsea.'
Well, caliph is more a religious title than other thing. There were caliphs in Morocco or Spain... Why you should need Arabia or Armenia?
In my opinion, besides the German and Greek emperors, and the possibility of an "Emperor of the West" crowned by the Pope, this should be something more for flavour as it was in DV. For example you can be Emperor of Bulgaria or Hispania but without any real power (by default) over the other christian kingdoms, just as it was in the real life.
Theft is a monarchical custom, but Bourbons exaggerate it.
Talleyrand
The Eastern Roman Emperor claimed the title "Vice-Gerent of Christ". The fact that the Caliph was a religious title shouldn't deter the fact that he was usually the strongest Islamic ruler in the "known" world.
As for the other Imperial titles, it would depend on implimentation. All Empires in the West operated on the idea of "translatio imperii", yet there was the possibility in game of having an Emperor in say, France, while the HRE still reigned. For me, at least in a RP way, I always treated that imperial trait as the Pope recognizing my large Empire and crowning me 'Emperor of the Romans in Gaul'.
His Holiness, Pavlvs Qvartvs, Bishop of Rome & Successor of Saint Peter, in the Gloriana 1559 RPG
Yeah, but there were two caliphs (or more) at the same time, Shiite caliphs, Sunnite caliphs, one Caliph in Morocco, other in Baghdad and other in Egypt... Why you should need Armenia or any specific place to be caliph?
Theft is a monarchical custom, but Bourbons exaggerate it.
Talleyrand
I like the idea of a designated fourth tier of Empires, because that was always the goal - to unite a large group of Kingdoms. But is should be very hard to do.
"God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless."
-Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz
How about this as an a-historical fourth tier Empire.
Emperor of Rome.
Must control 66% of the Roman Empire at its peak. Also must contain all of Italy (excluding Sicily?? except for land under the Papal State.
Also destroys title Holy Roman Emperor (obviously since half of Germany would be needed.)
All I'm saying is if I recreate the Roman Empire I want to be Emperor of Rome!
Any thoughs?
I'd really like it if the electoral monarchy of the Holy Roman Empire was adequately modelled (I.e., a Holy Roman Emperor is elected by seven electors and becomes the nominal liege of all HRE principalities, as well as king of Germany and Italy; Bohemia would have an independent king under the HRE).
There already is a Roman Emperor
Traits: Arbitrary, Generous
Couldn't they just pluck that system out of EU3? Well, it would need *some* changes, but still?
The Holy Roman Emperor isnt really Emperor of Rome!
I mean an actual Roman Empire. You know with Caesar and what not. Not some puppet of the Papacy.
And then you have the Greek successor states who are ruled by dukes mechanically losing a single war and being vassals of the Latin Emperor.Essentially a group of crusaders would take Constantinople and grab the Byz title. Then the Princes in Anatolia and Epirus would rebel. Epirus, Trebizond and Nicaea would all be led by powerful Prince with claims on the Byz title. Simple.
They were recognized throughout history to be empires. Why put them as a lesser tier?
Considering the trait they added towards the end of the CK1 patching period ("Emperor" for anyone with 6+ crowns or the crowns of the HRE), I think they were leaning towards a fourth tier but figured it would require too much engine modification.
Dílis d'ár n-Oidhreacht.
True to Our Heritage.
1 Clerk
Nationality: Irish
Religion: Catholic
Ideology: Reactionary
Issues: Moralism/Laissez-faire
Militancy: 3 (+0.49)
Consciousness: 8 (-0.64)
That already exists and as such the Emperors in Constantinople would like to have a word with you...
Hmmm...Emperor, eh?
There really should only be three creatable Empires in the game in Western Europe.
Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, and Danish/Norwegian Empire if they come to own all of Scadinavia, and England.
However! I think there should be a way for Kingdoms to become Empires as well with high prestige scores, piety, and military might. Kinda like how EU3 covers this type of promotion. E.g.- You start out as the Kingdom of France then upgrade to the Empire of France.
Thats my take anyway.
The problem with that is that this neat and tidy election system was based on the Golden Bull issued in 1356, three hundred years after game start.
His Holiness, Pavlvs Qvartvs, Bishop of Rome & Successor of Saint Peter, in the Gloriana 1559 RPG
And he is quite pissed off by Stratagyfan101 claim
Nationality/Religion: Indonesian (Malayan)/Sunni
Ideology: Socialist
Issues: Interventionism/Jingoism
Cash Reserves: $ 500
Revoltrisk: 5.8%
Militancy/Consciousness: 8 (+3.05) / 8 (+3.12)
Never underestimate a cat. Because if you corner a cat, it will kill you.
CK II is under development! Yay!
If you're going to talk about ahistorical Scandinavian empires, why not England+Scotland+Ireland+Wales=British Empire or England+France=Angevin Empire?
Dílis d'ár n-Oidhreacht.
True to Our Heritage.
1 Clerk
Nationality: Irish
Religion: Catholic
Ideology: Reactionary
Issues: Moralism/Laissez-faire
Militancy: 3 (+0.49)
Consciousness: 8 (-0.64)
France + Italy + Sicily + Castile + Leon + Aragon = Western Roman Empire
Greece + Anatonia + Syria + Jerusalem + Egypt = Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire)
France + Germany + Italy (+ Lotharingia/Frisia) = Frankish Empire
With all this talk about 4th tier, I think it should be stated that it should be VERY difficult to maintain a 4th tier level over succeeding generations.
Even Henry I thought to divide his Angivine Empire amongst his sons at one point. I think there should be a strong pull by locals to rebel.
If the King of England, Duke of Aquitaine and Normandy spends most of his time in Anjou, then perhaps his most powerful English dukes, their vassals and allies, should rebel in England to possibly take the kingship title there. Likewise, if someone managed to take France, Aquitainia, Castile, Leon, Aragon, Italy, and created a Frankish Empire or Western Roman Empire title, then it should be VERY difficult for his son/daughter heir to maintain it... or there should be some call by his heirs in general to claim a kingship titles and divide the empire by the number of heirs. There should be events which will strongly encourage a ruler to change to semisalic consangunity to break up those empires.
While forging great empires took exceptional men, maintaining those empires over generations proved all but impossible and was rarely achived. Strong localism should dominate; at least until a strong road network through out the kingdoms is established.
Does this make sense?
Damsels Not In Distress mode (allows female inheritance in CK I) & Crusader Queens, Cool-toxic's CK Clone
Jordarkelf's DV Improvement Pack, Looking for a Good Starting County? Gwynedd FTW!
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality during the middle ages discussion thread.
I've thought while playing CK before that an Emperor title with the power to have Kings as vassals would be a good idea. I don't have much opinion on which should be added, beyond the obvious Byzantium and HRE, but I definately want to see this included in some way.
I'm for also the ability for one king to mediatise another, vassalizing him. The Angivine Kings considered the Scottish king, Welsh princes, and the petty kings of Ireland to be vassals of them. Also, the Holy Roman Emperor’s relationship with the King of Bohemia.I've thought while playing CK before that an Emperor title with the power to have Kings as vassals would be a good idea. I don't have much opinion on which should be added, beyond the obvious Byzantium and HRE, but I definately want to see this included in some way.
I think that if someone created a united King of Wales, and England and Wales were to go to war and Wales (or England, it could happen!) lost, that the King of England should at first vassalize the king of Wales during diplomacy. Then, the King of Wales would have his title change or appear as "Prince of Wales".
Similarly with other king titles. If the Holy Roman Emperor were to conquer the King of France, perhaps the King of France... while maintaining his kingship level prerogatives... would then be "Prince of France"
Does this make sense?
Damsels Not In Distress mode (allows female inheritance in CK I) & Crusader Queens, Cool-toxic's CK Clone
Jordarkelf's DV Improvement Pack, Looking for a Good Starting County? Gwynedd FTW!
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality during the middle ages discussion thread.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote