Is there a British Empire?

[Bigheeed]

I know people love their historical accuracy and that's great for choosing your 'start point' but the main aim of the game (unless roleplaying) is to change history so having fixed titles is very limiting to anyone who doesn't start out in or work to usurp one of the emperor titles as it leaves you holding many king titles that practically everyone desires.
I've seen screen shots of people who have conquered the world and they have all done it under emperor titles (that i have seen). Why should players be limited to making one of the failing empires (which in this game aren't really failing enough) great again when they could turn one of the emerging powers into an empire which is probably closer to the historical truth anyway.
I agree maybe there should be big penalties for proclaiming yourself an emperor but i think you should be able to, along with that the ability to merge crowns (say after 50years of them being united etc etc).

[Joel M Bridge]

As far I remember, The Holy Roman Emperor ruled, in theory, over the whole world by mandate of the pope, which is one the reasons why, no other catholic ruler declared themselves as emperors in the time period of the game, without some relation to the pope or the HRE. This idea of world rule changed somewhere between 1200 to 1300, for some reason I can’t remember… and the official name changed in 1500 to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

My point is I don’t necessary want to see another catholic Empire in the game, but rather a way to form a new kingdom, a United Kingdom or some kind of union, with one administration, when I have the same laws in all of the kingdoms I control. And if some catholic king proclaims themselves as emperor, it should have consequences in the form of extremely negative diplomatic relations to the HRE and the pope and in the long run excommunication and war.

That would make sense because you try usuper there rightful place.

[manicus]

Well considering I have taken Wales, Scotland, Brittany, Denmark and Aragon with a dynasty started by Edgar of Wessex I think the whole point was to be ahistorical. To me an empire is defind by a number of defined kingdoms coming under one ruler. i think with this many kingdoms under my control its hard to be called a kingdom, it by definition and empire, pity this is not built into vanilla.

[Joel M Bridge]

I know people love their historical accuracy and that's great for choosing your 'start point' but the main aim of the game (unless roleplaying) is to change history so having fixed titles is very limiting to anyone who doesn't start out in or work to usurp one of the emperor titles as it leaves you holding many king titles that practically everyone desires.
I've seen screen shots of people who have conquered the world and they have all done it under emperor titles (that i have seen). Why should players be limited to making one of the failing empires (which in this game aren't really failing enough) great again when they could turn one of the emerging powers into an empire which is probably closer to the historical truth anyway.
I agree maybe there should be big penalties for proclaiming yourself an emperor but i think you should be able to, along with that the ability to merge crowns (say after 50years of them being united etc etc).

Merging crown but yest proclaimg emperor no, if can do one if strong enought your going fight the holy roman emperor, if not it will just small moditfer to show that nobody take you seriously alot like emperor all spain.

[moldeh]

I know people love their historical accuracy and that's great for choosing your 'start point' but the main aim of the game (unless roleplaying) is to change history so having fixed titles is very limiting to anyone who doesn't start out in or work to usurp one of the emperor titles as it leaves you holding many king titles that practically everyone desires.
I've seen screen shots of people who have conquered the world and they have all done it under emperor titles (that i have seen). Why should players be limited to making one of the failing empires (which in this game aren't really failing enough) great again when they could turn one of the emerging powers into an empire which is probably closer to the historical truth anyway.
I agree maybe there should be big penalties for proclaiming yourself an emperor but i think you should be able to, along with that the ability to merge crowns (say after 50years of them being united etc etc).

Exactly. There was no British Empire at this time IRL. But there also wasn't an English kingdom bigger than the HRE. So, while it was historically impossible for something like that to happen at this point, I think that's sort of irrelevant. Once you get 20 kingdom titles, you're a de facto emperor and I don't think anyone would be able to stop you from declaring yourself as such. Who knows, maybe if the English had conquered all of Europe, there would have been a British Empire that was founded in the 1300s. The game starts out in a historical fashion but most of the time it plays out much different than it did IRL...and yes, I'm talking about the Doukas and Salian dynasties staying in power and getting all of Europe under their rule.

[Bigheeed]

I think the conditions to create an empire would have to be hard to achieve, Just the kingdoms in Spain wouldn't be enough it would probably have to be done on total holdings ie being the liege of 100 counties or something similar so you already own a vast area as opposed to a number kingdom's held which could be done easily with a lot of small crowns.
The main thing i guess is people don't want to spend ages growing their starting Kingdom only to have to give it up and switch to being HRE or ERE so as to progress.

[Luhood]

As far as I've gathered from school (and Wikipedia, though it's uncertainty) and as far as I'm concerned for that matter, the title Emperor, as have been stated earlier, originated from the roman imperator, and as such was originally used to describe the two descendants of the Roman Empire (the HRE and Byzantium). What it then became, and as we mainly use it today (HUGE stretches of land of different ethnicities and cultures ruled by that one guy) don't seem to have really been implemented until somewhere around the 1400-1500s when the great Colonialism started and Kings started ruling over people and lands which weren't European. Most "empires" before then (other than the Holy Roman, Byzantine and Roman Empires) are so only by the modern definition and because historians named them so, and not because they actually are "real" empires. Sure, ahistoricality and all that, I know, but that doesn't play into it. While the temptation to have an empire is great it is only because of what it have come to mean (modern def.) rather than what it really is (Roman descendant title), and the modern definition ain't important during the timeline of the game.

And by that definition I agree with the idea of NOT having any other empires than HRE and Byzantium in CK2, since that doesn't make any real sense. And to be real honest I can't see why Empires are such a big deal anyhow... I would be perfectly fine with being the King of 4-5 nations even without being the emperor of said areas. I mean, why in the world would you want to divide your lands anyhow? Why not simply stay the King over said areas and be happy? Because you want to vassalize (vassalise?) other kings? Please...

[manicus]

Yes to vassalize other kings. I am pretty sure the pope would agree to declare me emperor if I paid him enough or any likely scenario. U refer to the Romans as the basis for empire definition. What did the Romans do but capture a bunch of other kingdoms?

[Joel M Bridge]

Yes to vassalize other kings. I am pretty sure the pope would agree to declare me emperor if I paid him enough or any likely scenario. U refer to the Romans as the basis for empire definition. What did the Romans do but capture a bunch of other kingdoms?

If your catholic ruler declaring youself emperor saying your ruler all christendom in theory, which pretty much make you look like asshole in same way centerual africa declare it self empire. Unless your the Emperor of Holy Roman empire which pope eye it only legitment empire so rest catholic it only true succesor to rome. So for example if have land Richard the Lionheart own which medival any man one man to have massive he never once delcare himself emperor. Do declare empire it the roman empire not empire of fance or england ext roman empire, become that who be like scope and power all aurhtory roots from during this time period. All be offical empire goes back rome in time period one way or nother. only reason latin call themseves empire because it had the "Geat city in there postion" agrugle give right to be the next rome.

[Joel M Bridge]

Well considering I have taken Wales, Scotland, Brittany, Denmark and Aragon with a dynasty started by Edgar of Wessex I think the whole point was to be ahistorical. To me an empire is defind by a number of defined kingdoms coming under one ruler. i think with this many kingdoms under my control its hard to be called a kingdom, it by definition and empire, pity this is not built into vanilla.

Charle V was emperor why become he was elect. there was many king during history that empire spand land and rarely did any of use emperor or empire.

[AlexanderPrimus]

Are the two caliphates empire tier? If they're not, ought they to be?

[Baneslave]

Are the two caliphates empire tier? If they're not, ought they to be?

Yep.

[Hyo]

Current Empires are: HRE, ERE, Sunni Caliphate (landless), Shia Caliphate (landless), Ilkhanate (landless), Golden Horde (landless)

[disgradius]

For balance reasons, I'm not too sure about giving the ERE de jure territory and the caliphates none. As is, the ERE is way too resistant to vassal rebellions whereas the shia caliphate tends to get gobbled up over time as its vassals revolt mid-war with the ERE.

Might be a good idea to change the offer vassalization options such that being de-jure liege isn't such a big factor. Vassals during this period didn't really have a concept of legal territories anyhow, only proper inheritance.

Besides, considering the 400 or so years this game spans, it'd be fairly reasonable for certain territories to be considered de jure part of their new owners' kingdoms after a few centuries. It's not like the current de jure boundaries were all formed by treaty anyhow.

[Zzzzz...]

The Spaniards were even shot down by everyone when their king proclaimed himself Emperor. British Empire is even more unlikely.

[moldeh]

The Spaniards were even shot down by everyone when their king proclaimed himself Emperor. British Empire is even more unlikely.

I'd LOVE it if I declared myself Emperor and the other 2 Empires attacked me. That would be just really effing awesome. I can call myself whatever I want, as long I can get away with it. It can be titular (every see the word titular I think of breasts for some reason) but that's not the point. If I'm strong enough to get away with it, let me do it. If I can't, then I'll have to live (or die) with the consequences of my actions.

[TabulaRasa]

For balance reasons, I'm not too sure about giving the ERE de jure territory and the caliphates none. As is, the ERE is way too resistant to vassal rebellions whereas the shia caliphate tends to get gobbled up over time as its vassals revolt mid-war with the ERE.

Might be a good idea to change the offer vassalization options such that being de-jure liege isn't such a big factor. Vassals during this period didn't really have a concept of legal territories anyhow, only proper inheritance.

Besides, considering the 400 or so years this game spans, it'd be fairly reasonable for certain territories to be considered de jure part of their new owners' kingdoms after a few centuries. It's not like the current de jure boundaries were all formed by treaty anyhow.

I especially agree here with the idea that de jure territories should be considered for change through time as certain factors are met. The whole concept of de jure is tradition, ie. what has been the case or norm for some time since then, which gives it a natural right of being in that state. Of course, I think that de jure duchies should be harder to form than de jure kingdoms, which would then be harder to form than dejure empires (assuming we're dealing only with the ERE and HRE). Maybe there should be an event, such as the cultural change one, where under certain triggers (same culture as border county, in a different de jure duchy, but held by the same duke and has to be the duke rather than a vassal, same religion as duke, 0% revolt risk for some time, de jure duchy is not already 5 counties), with a mean time to happen of let's say 150 years. I can see this being implemented without too much issue, and I think might be something to consider that would give the game a little more flavour - even though it's already pretty tasty...

[Lys91]

I think as a Catholic you need to be crowned by the Pope to declare yourself an Emperor. Napoléon did. We call some historical countries as Empire now days while they were not technically Empire (or at least their ruler did not style themselves as so, like colonial Empires etc...)