• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Angevin Empire (did not exist as per se in history, but would have been possible) Western part of France + England + various minor possessions of the Plantagenet kingdom to be defined).

Angevin = lands of the Anjou dinasty. How would this "Empire" be called if formed by another dinasty?
 
In the beginning of the game, they will be the only two rulers holding the title of Emperor. But who's to say that, under the player's influence, a new Empire might not arise? This game is all about the ahistorical possibilities which arise from the characters' mutual interactions, putting an arbitrary constraint on the title of "Emperor" seems silly.


Yes, one reason there should only be two empires is so the developers can put some focus on them. The ruler who hold the title of Holy Roman Emperor, claim to be the Universal Ruler, whilt the Church claims to be the Universal Church. And then the obvious conflict on which of them is more powerful can really begin. I'd love if there'd be some dualism between the pope and the Holy Roman Emperor.

The Emperor titles should be about claiming the Universal Emperor Title. Not just some regional flavour.

I'm somewhere in between your views, although in personally tend towards the opinion yourworstnightm, I also know that a lot of people share the view of vadermath. If anything becoming a new emperor (not existing imperial titles like the Holy Roman Emperor and the Eastern Roman Emperor title) should be very hard and the number of emperor's which can exist at each time should be limited (if I'm not mistaken this would be like the becoming-a-king-in-the-HRE-rule in Magna Mundi, I believe that there can only be 4 kings); every emperor has the aspiration that he is the universal emperor.
Alternatively I won't mind to see a emperor-trait, like a honorific title, for a-historic empires. Another idea is that the king of the Romans is never crowned by the pope, but the pope crowns, a rival of the king of the Romans and his friend and/or ally , as emperor instead. Which could lead to an anti-pope:).
 
Last edited:
Legally, as I understand it, there could be but one emperor. Having other Catholic emperors besides the HRE could work in a few different ways, all depending on the relationship between the Papacy and the HRE, and the relative strength of either; all these choices are fantastical resolutions so I'm pretty out there:

(1) (Strong HRE, weak Papacy): as during the Roman Empire's tetrarchy, there could be co-emperors or at least vice-emperors. I could imagine some very extended marches where the frontiers of Christianity existed. This choice assumes that the universal suzerainity of the HRE is recognized widely in the West.

(2) (Weak HRE, strong Papacy): the Papacy seeks protection from another strong secular Catholic ruler, and offers them the imperial title in return.

(3) (Weak HRE, weak Papacy): very decentralized Church allowing for rise of strong national churches

The other side of things is similar to the "emperor" trait in CK1: you can seek Papal approval for your rule in case of rather weak legitimacy and/or because your magnates are stacked against you.
 
(2) (Weak HRE, strong Papacy): the Papacy seeks protection from another strong secular Catholic ruler, and offers them the imperial title in return.

In that case, the loser of the two emperors (for conflict between the two is inevitable) will be known as an anti-emperor for posterity. After all, as you say, there can be only one.
 
I always thought a fourth tier would have been nice in CK for gameplay reasons. In some games when I did collect a couple of king titles, it would have been nice to have been High King of the Britons or Emperor of Such and Such. This way I could have handed out king titles, and instead of micromanaging several kingdoms worth of dukes I could have had a king vassal and just my own kingdom's dukes.
 
I always thought a fourth tier would have been nice in CK for gameplay reasons. In some games when I did collect a couple of king titles, it would have been nice to have been High King of the Britons or Emperor of Such and Such. This way I could have handed out king titles, and instead of micromanaging several kingdoms worth of dukes I could have had a king vassal and just my own kingdom's dukes.

No medieval king became Emperor with no reason. Maud became Empress because she was related to a Holy Roman Emperor, and she was probably very vane. Alfonso of León was crowned Emperor of All Spain, but he didn't became king of everything else in Spain. He was just king of León for all real effects. Prestige stuff.

I've said before that I'm against Emperors popping out everywhere. There must be a good reason to become Emperor, because an Imperial crown is serious stuff, it can grant you considerable spiritual power, especially if you claim it to come from Roman Emperors, along with all their cesaropapism. The Pope will have something to say for sure.
 
No medieval king became Emperor with no reason. Maud became Empress because she was related to a Holy Roman Emperor, and she was probably very vane. Alfonso of León was crowned Emperor of All Spain, but he didn't became king of everything else in Spain. He was just king of León for all real effects. Prestige stuff.

I've said before that I'm against Emperors popping out everywhere. There must be a good reason to become Emperor, because an Imperial crown is serious stuff, it can grant you considerable spiritual power, especially if you claim it to come from Roman Emperors, along with all their cesaropapism. The Pope will have something to say for sure.

In all actuality, it should be either the Pope handing the title out (in the West) or recognition of Imperial status from one of the Emperors. I know it was later, but Ivan IV of Russia based part of his claim to the Imperial throne upon a letter from Maximilian I which recognized their Imperial aspirations.
 
I like the idea, but the Byz should have their own mechanics.

I agree. It was a whole different world. Maybe there should be a government_type = imperial to model the more centralized Roman Empire, as well as for those Muslim and Christian states that meet certain requirements. There should be governors (strategos) instead of hereditary dukedoms, among other differences.
 
Lol at the Empire of Scania. Pretty sure you mean Empire of Scandinavia :D
 
No medieval king became Emperor with no reason. Maud became Empress because she was related to a Holy Roman Emperor, and she was probably very vane.

Matilda was married to the Holy Roman Emperor.

I'm of the opinion that there should only be two Emperors.
 
Matilda was married to the Holy Roman Emperor.

I'm of the opinion that there should only be two Emperors.

I'm with you, but will there be something akin to imperial administration in EU3? Having an imperial title should involve more than being able to hold kings as vassals and having a fancier shield border, or at least it should have the potential for having more of an effect. I'm talking about consolidating your rule, people. Thoughts?
 
I'm with you, but will there be something akin to imperial administration in EU3? Having an imperial title should involve more than being able to hold kings as vassals and having a fancier shield border, or at least it should have the potential for having more of an effect. I'm talking about consolidating your rule, people. Thoughts?

Well the Eastern Roman imperial administration is and should be very different from the Holy Roman imperial administration (or at least is much further developed), however this might be represented by centralization and royal authority etc. In my opinion most of your thoughts should be easier to achieve in the Eastern Roman Empire than in the Holy Roman Empire.
 
Well the Eastern Roman imperial administration is and should be very different from the Holy Roman imperial administration (or at least is much further developed), however this might be represented by centralization and royal authority etc. In my opinion most of your thoughts should be easier to achieve in the Eastern Roman Empire than in the Holy Roman Empire.

I recognize the difference there, and the difficulty that would be involved. The administration of the Eastern Roman Empire grew out of the old provincial system, then evolved the tagmata while confronting the military threat of the Arabs and Turks. Now, in the West, royal administration was grounded in the areas of former Roman control in the bishops and archbishops, who ruled over former Roman provinces (from whence we get the term diocese in the first place). Working against this was both feudalism, in the sense of hereditary duchies that sought autonomy above all, and the Papacy, which sought to undermine royal authority through the very bishops that kings and the HRE relied upon to govern their realms.

I think that there is room for greater centralization here than happened historically, if some factors had turned out differently. My main interest in CK2 is not world conquest but managing a medium-sized, rather insular realm and guiding its social, economic, and political development along. I am interested in how the devs will be able to model these developments, and undertaking some modding in that direction myself.