Poland: Kingdom of Duchy

[HMAS-Nameless]

One thing that I always found a bit odd, (mainly as the descendant of a group of Polish living along the Baltic), is that in CK1 Poland was always represented as a Kingdom no matter what.
Infact during the Middle Ages Poland had a King for only certain periods, most of the time Poland was infact an independent Duchy, ruled by the "Duke of Poland", and rulers would only assume the title of King occasionally through out history until it became much more common later on. In fact there was no consistant "King" of Poland until 1295. Earlier Dukes of Poland assumed the title if they gained in game terms enough prestige but 60% of rulers of Poland during the game's timeframe were called Duke. What I'm basically saying is that there should be two titles, Duke of Poland as well as King of Poland.
In 1066 in the games start date, Bolesław II was referred to as Duke of Poland. For a brief period of time he referred to himself as King from 1076-1079 but after his death all rulers of Poland instead had the title of "Duke" (or High Duke) until the beginning of the 14th century. Basically I think to be historical all you have to do is implement a new title "Duke of Poland" (with King of Poland obviously creatable) and have Poland ruled by a Duke. For referencing see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rchs_of_Poland.
Thanks!

[Andrelvis]

In CK, titles don't function exactly like in real life (but near enough). Duchies are regions within a kingdom, so they are very much correlated to country size and importance. And Poland is just too big to be a duchy in the game.

[RedRooster81]

Well, based on what I understand about localisation files, you could call the third-tier title for Poland "Grand Duke" if you liked (or the Polish equivalent).

[the_legion]

Well, based on what I understand about localisation files, you could call the third-tier title for Poland "Grand Duke" if you liked (or the Polish equivalent).

That would only work as the OP wanted if you additionally create a 4th tier title "King of Poland"...
The available maximum tiers is the problem to model complex situations like this.

[RedRooster81]

That would only work as the OP wanted if you additionally create a 4th tier title "King of Poland"...
The available maximum tiers is the problem to model complex situations like this.

Four tiers would work fine, I suppose, but it might be superfluous if the liege of Poland's dukes is the Grand Duke. What I suggested was baron-count-duke-grand duke, given the possibility of culture-specific titles for each tier. I would recommend a decision "proclaim yourself King of Poland" rather than a permanent title, given what is contained in the OP. I am not more familiar with Poland's medieval history than that, so I will leave it at that.

[Leviathan07]

any duke who holds 3 or 4 ducal titles within Poland would be de-facto king of the country, even if his in-game title is still "duke".

To be crowned "king of X" in CK1 required you to control 2/3 of the provinces in X, and the king title to be vacant. Many king titles remained vacant for long parts of the grand campaign, for example the King of Rus title, or the Lotharingia / Andalusia king level titles from Veldmarschalk's DVIP mod. The same could apply here for the Polish king title.

However in CK1, king titles could not become vacant again unless the holder of the title was completely stripped of his demesne provinces AND also had no more vassals. This rarely happened and you usually had situations where the titular King of, say, Bohemia was a guy in northern Finland or southern Spain who owned only one county and the royal crown. Kind of ridiculous because if you wanted to become King of Bohemia in this situation, even if you owned all of Bohemia you would still have to usurp the title from the Spanish guy (usurp = lay claim) and then take it from him in war.

[offtopic]
It would be nice if CK2 had some kind of mechanic to prevent such absurdities.

Any Christian ruler, who is in possession of the lands that constitute a kingdom, should be able to invoke some kind of action that makes the titular holder of the king title lose his crown.

The "titular kings" were fun sometimes - and in history there actually were some of those, such as the titular kings of Jerusalem (actually: counts of Cyprus) who stuck around for 100s of years even after losing the lands that constituted their kingdom. If you lose your land to heathens then you should be allowed to hold on to the crown. But if you lose it to another Christian ruler, or you lose it to ANYONE and then another Christian ruler unites the former kingdom under his rule, he should be able to become king himself without having to stage ridiculous expeditions across the whole of Europe.
[/offtopic]

[the_legion]

I would recommend a decision "proclaim yourself King of Poland" rather than a permanent title, given what is contained in the OP.

We all have no data now, but I guess it's easier to add a 4th tier and introduce a special heritage rule "not heritable title" then making it via decision,
because it's maybe hard to make a decission that you are actually called "king" ingame.

[RedRooster81]

Good idea, Leviathan, on those "empty robes" who lost their kingdoms. There should be events or decisions to revoke the title of the exiled king. It would be nice to have a sort of landless title, like Pretender to the Kingdom of Bohemia (or "King-Aspirant of Bohemia"?), in such cases. Historically, some kings continued to use titles for places that they no longer controlled, though this might be a late medieval/early modern convention. (I am an early modern historian, so sometimes I apply things backwards too much.)

Say the King of Bohemia is now serving as Count of Molina; he owes de jure vassalage to the King of Castile or perhaps the Archbishop of Toledo under CK2's landholding system, so it should be more complicated but more rational than in CK1. People who lost their titles were still deemed worthy of respect (at least in some circles), even if they had lost their ancestral lands. I say this because there should be events to restore them to their respective thrones. I'm not sure how this would work exactly, but if the magnates of Bohemia are unhappy with their current king, they can invite the deposed king (or his heir) to return, with or without a succession war, maybe with arbitration in this case of the Papacy or the HRE.

I think this is germane here because whatever we call them, Christian rulers who hold sway over a de facto kingdom should be made king of the same. The issue here is who should have the right to decide who can be called king and who cannot. By the XIII-XIV century, it was the pope for Catholic Europe. Even earlier, in the year 1000, Pope Sylvester II crowned Stephen king of Hungary with tacit approval from the HRE (who historically were enemies of the Magyars). Then there was all the wrangling over naming Sicily a kingdom and whether the pope had the right to depose that king at will (i.e., suzerainity). So a similar dynamic could be applied to Poland's case in CK2. (If you have an antipope, well maybe you can do it yourself??) What I am saying is that you should have to petition the pope and the Emperor (if you are in the HRE's presumed jurisdiction or its neighbor) for the privilege of calling yourself king. Otherwise, you should have an uphill battle to be recognized as such. Maybe events could fire for the neighbors, too. I'm complicating things perhaps more than some folks may like, but that is worth it methinks. New kingdom titles upset the balance of power on the regional level at least, and having to seek papal approval also works in balancing secular rulers' ambitions towards church wealth and influence--okay, the Duke of Algarve wants to be elevated to king, but he needs to make concessions as well as a nice donation, likely scale back on Crown Investiture or at least soften the blow a bit.

[TempestDK]

... for example the King of Rus title, or the Lotharingia / Andalusia king level titles from Veldmarschalk's DVIP mod.

That would be Jordarkelf's DVIP mod ... Veld made TASS.

[Nick B II]

The point of the tiers is to model the functions of various countries correctly, not get the precise title right. This is especially true for smallish countries (Poland's only 20 provinces) that have weird titles for their ruler. Always remember: if the name of the title was the most important thing in determining it's tier litterally every Irish Noble would be a King.

There's no question: The Hugh Duchy of Poland functioned as a King-level title in CK terms, therefore it should be King-tier. Period. You make it Duchy-tier with a createble King-title you're screing Polish Dukes (who must now be Counts to have a Duke-level liege) and you aren't solving the problem because the AI will promote itself to King at the first opportunity.

If you make the High Duchy King-tier, but add a fourth-tier King-title every human player is always gonna start as High Duke of Poland, declare himself King, and immediately reap the benefits of being an Emperor. As will the AI, so at best you've delayed the problematic King-title a few decades.

The best you can do is this:
The King-level title of Poland is High Duke. Through events the High Duke can get a trait "King," similar to DV's Emperor trait.

I doubt this'll make the intiial release. Paradox's non-determinism means they don't like adding events for just one country. But it'll be easy to mod in, and things that get into popular mods frequently get into patches.

Nick

[Kalontas]

I think showing Poland as Kingdom all the time is a simplification necessary for a game. It was possible, in those times, to become a King of Poland, only the acceptation required a complicated process or having serious backing among bigger powers - a process that won't be believably modelled by CK2 engine - so it's simplified to having the terrirorial claims.

If Poland started as a duchy in game, it would end up vassalised by Germans in 20 years in about 9 out of 10 games. Poland, as it is, is already too frail next to Germans, and lowering its tier would make it disappear from the map very quickly, something that shouldn't happen, as evidenced by our history.

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Adding onto Nick B II's ideas, it may might maybe we hope be possible to have an event fire that gives the "Duke of Poland" the title of "King". In that, before, the title of Poland is Duke, normally, but a high-prestige or whatever ruler can activate a decision, or whatever, that fires this event, that changes the title of Poland onscreen from 'Duke' the 'King'. The title would still be a king-tier title. This even could also be used to show the rise of the Duke of Bohemia to King of Bohemia, or the rise of second German prince from Duke to Archduke.

However, the tier-title-names will probably be hard-coded.

[HMAS-Nameless]

Adding onto Nick B II's ideas, it may might maybe we hope be possible to have an event fire that gives the "Duke of Poland" the title of "King". In that, before, the title of Poland is Duke, normally, but a high-prestige or whatever ruler can activate a decision, or whatever, that fires this event, that changes the title of Poland onscreen from 'Duke' the 'King'. The title would still be a king-tier title. This even could also be used to show the rise of the Duke of Bohemia to King of Bohemia, or the rise of second German prince from Duke to Archduke.

However, the tier-title-names will probably be hard-coded.

Thats actually such a smart idea imo, in the timeframe of the game.

[Leviathan07]

That would be Jordarkelf's DVIP mod ... Veld made TASS.

Oops! Ah yes Jordarkelf's mod is what I meant

Good idea, Leviathan, on those "empty robes" who lost their kingdoms. There should be events or decisions to revoke the title of the exiled king. It would be nice to have a sort of landless title, like Pretender to the Kingdom of Bohemia (or "King-Aspirant of Bohemia"?), in such cases. Historically, some kings continued to use titles for places that they no longer controlled, though this might be a late medieval/early modern convention. (I am an early modern historian, so sometimes I apply things backwards too much.)

Say the King of Bohemia is now serving as Count of Molina; he owes de jure vassalage to the King of Castile or perhaps the Archbishop of Toledo under CK2's landholding system, so it should be more complicated but more rational than in CK1. People who lost their titles were still deemed worthy of respect (at least in some circles), even if they had lost their ancestral lands. I say this because there should be events to restore them to their respective thrones. I'm not sure how this would work exactly, but if the magnates of Bohemia are unhappy with their current king, they can invite the deposed king (or his heir) to return, with or without a succession war, maybe with arbitration in this case of the Papacy or the HRE.

I think this is germane here because whatever we call them, Christian rulers who hold sway over a de facto kingdom should be made king of the same. The issue here is who should have the right to decide who can be called king and who cannot. By the XIII-XIV century, it was the pope for Catholic Europe. Even earlier, in the year 1000, Pope Sylvester II crowned Stephen king of Hungary with tacit approval from the HRE (who historically were enemies of the Magyars). Then there was all the wrangling over naming Sicily a kingdom and whether the pope had the right to depose that king at will (i.e., suzerainity). So a similar dynamic could be applied to Poland's case in CK2. (If you have an antipope, well maybe you can do it yourself??) What I am saying is that you should have to petition the pope and the Emperor (if you are in the HRE's presumed jurisdiction or its neighbor) for the privilege of calling yourself king. Otherwise, you should have an uphill battle to be recognized as such. Maybe events could fire for the neighbors, too. I'm complicating things perhaps more than some folks may like, but that is worth it methinks. New kingdom titles upset the balance of power on the regional level at least, and having to seek papal approval also works in balancing secular rulers' ambitions towards church wealth and influence--okay, the Duke of Algarve wants to be elevated to king, but he needs to make concessions as well as a nice donation, likely scale back on Crown Investiture or at least soften the blow a bit.

I'm not sure if early modern prestige-thinking and legitimacy-thinking really mattered so much in the middle ages. Maybe internally, within kingdoms, but certainly not in the "foreign relations" (a modern concept) between kingdoms.

Power in a feudal kingdom came not from being recognized by fellow rulers, but from having the loyalty of your vassals and being recognized as the legit ruler by THEM. Kings were first and foremost guardians of their kingdom, and arbiters of peace among its nobles. They did not have to put up border posts or maintain any sort of permanent external relations - so they had no need to be "accepted" as kings by other kings of Europe.

In that sense I do not think it makes sense to treat pretenders as anything other than regular counts who happen to have a claim on a king title. There should NOT be any special events to restore them to their thrones, at least none besides what is planned already for normal courtiers who have nice claims.

Legitimacy mattered only within your kingdom, not outside. If the dukes and princes of the realm accepted you as king, then that was enough to be taken seriously. Very different from 15th and later centuries, where kings by necessity had to maintain much more busy external relations.

Were there even any formal "depositions" or "succession wars" in the middle ages?? I can't think of any. If you wanted to be king, you had to beat the sitting king in battle and secure the loyalty of the vassals (which includes the Bishops) - the pope had no say on this (except in Sicily).

[RedRooster81]

Diplomacy did matter but it was more personal, and rivalries between neighbors were often worked out during succession crises. By my definition, there are plenty of such events that we can look at between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance. Look at the Scottish Wars for Independence, which involved the intervention of an outside power (Edward I Plantagenet) between two pretenders, and the supporters of Robert Bruce worked in Paris and Rome to gain recognition for their side. Look at Iberia throughout the medieval period and you will not just see wars of succession but the involvement of other kingdoms in these struggles. The crisis begun after the death of Fernando the Great in 1065, the War of the Three Sanchos, the civil war between Pedro the Cruel and Enrique Trastamara, and the civil war between Juana and Isabel that punctuated the 1470s and drew Aragon and Portugal into the conflict.

And England's conflicts over succession often involved France, Scotland, and other powers. Hastings ended one succession crisis, but it continued on in the conflicts between the sons of William the Bastard. I don't know what to call the civil war between Etienne de Blois and Empress Matilda if not a succession war, and then there is the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses.

In addition, the Pope was also looked to as an arbiter in these conflicts, based on his claim to universal sovereignty and of course his ability to excommunicate any Catholic or declare him a heretic, and above all rulers who opposed his policies. Emperor Heinrich IV's two excommunications bear this out, and in the end he lost his throne as his own son became a pretender backed by Rome and many of German princes. If we look earlier, to the X century, the Carolingians fought many wars of succession, over legitimacy and the validity of claims, and not just the princes of each respective realm but the other Carolingian successor states conspired against each other, leading to a series of coups, depositions, and warfare.

So maybe you do not see these and other examples as wars of succession. Maybe it is a matter of definition. But it is hard to deny that the succession of titles and the strength of claims to these did not drive many medieval conflicts, and that foreign policy avant la lettre did not play a large role, particularly for pretenders who lacked enough force to back their claims.

[Kalontas]

Adding onto Nick B II's ideas, it may might maybe we hope be possible to have an event fire that gives the "Duke of Poland" the title of "King". In that, before, the title of Poland is Duke, normally, but a high-prestige or whatever ruler can activate a decision, or whatever, that fires this event, that changes the title of Poland onscreen from 'Duke' the 'King'. The title would still be a king-tier title. This even could also be used to show the rise of the Duke of Bohemia to King of Bohemia, or the rise of second German prince from Duke to Archduke.

However, the tier-title-names will probably be hard-coded.

Now that you say it, it does make sense for Duchies to be able to turn into full-fledged Kingdoms, like real world Russia. Only counties and baronies should be unable to advance, due to the their nature in the game itself.

[the_hdk]

well its a dilemma.

Degrading Poland to Duke status would make Germany eat Poland in 9 out of 10 games. like stated before not very historical.
Making the title for Polish King-tier High Duke is possible but only if there is an option for them to Become a King. (and I do not like the trait thing like the Emperor trait in CK1...)

so the only option left is to leave them as Kings.

ofcourse the best one would be if A High Duke of Poland with enough prestige could claim Kingship and therefore changing his title without changing his tier.

[the_legion]

well its a dilemma.
Degrading Poland to Duke status would make Germany eat Poland in 9 out of 10 games. like stated before not very historical.

"Not Historical" if you take the whole timeline of CK, but if you only take the startpoint maybe. It's not Germany (Which did not exist)
but the Holy Roman Empire which founded the Kingdom of Poland 66 years before the gamestart (1000AD) for the first time.
(See Congress of Gniezno and for example founding of archdiocese in Gniezno [before they belonged to e.g. Magdeburg]).

From this viewpoint, a polish Kingdom within the HRE (similar to Bohemian Kingdom with semi-souvereignity) in 1066 is not so unrealistic as it seems
today. The relations where quite good at the gamestart before the teutonic order settled in Prussia and later became to powerfull.

[the_hdk]

Boleslaw I took advantage of the interregnum in Germany and crowned himself king in 1025. The whole point of Poland becoming a Kingdom was to be independent from the Empire.

I used Germany as they mostly ware germans. but yes HRE.

and the HRE didn't found the Kingdom of Poland at the Congress of Gniezno. the Congress was in 1000. Boleslaw I was crowned 25 years later

[Raczynski]

Meh. There's no need for superflous pedantry. Poland was a kingdom-sized realm with (for most of CK the timeline) kingdom-level of autonomy. For gameplay reason, Poland works best as Kingdom.