• 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.
Well, it's Friday and high time to spill the beans on the new expansion for Crusader Kings II; the Sword of Islam. Judging by the forum, playable Muslims is the most requested feature for CKII, and who are we to disagree? We always wanted to do it, provided we could do the Muslim world justice. That time is now (or, well, soon :) ). As with the Ruler Designer DLC, the Sword of Islam will be released together with a major content patch. What you get with the Sword of Islam is simply the ability to play as the Muslim rulers, but all the new mechanics will be there and running for the AI (or other players in multiplayer) even if you don't have the expansion.

I'll be doing three dev diaries on the Sword of Islam, each one dealing with some unique features for the Muslims as well as some free features that everyone will have access to simply by patching to 1.06.

THE SWORD OF ISLAM

One of the major hassles with making Muslims playable was the prevalence of text with obviously Christian or Western terminology. Therefore, we had to go through all text to make it fit the setting if you are playing a Muslim. Often, this required writing whole new events and decisions. For example, Muslims don't hold tournaments, they have the Furusiyya instead, which is an exhibition of martial arts and horsemanship. They don't hold Grand Feasts, they observe the Ramadan, etc. We also added some completely new decisions, like going on the Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca), which will initiate a cool little event driven story of what happens on the way to and from the holy city. Of course, there is also a whole slew of events dealing with various new gameplay features (more on that in later dev diaries.)

Another issue we needed to solve was the Gothic looking graphical interface of Crusader Kings II, which we felt did not really work when playing as a Muslim ruler. So we did a complete reskin with sand tones and green symbols and patterns instead of the church window graphics of Christian rulers. Yet another problem was that many event pictures looked distinctly Western/Christian, so we've added about 25 new ones to serve as Muslim equivalents. Then there are all the little things, like trait icons with crosses, the Crusade banner, etc. All of that has been changed to provide the right atmosphere. We've even changed the five councillor models for Muslims when they're out in the provinces performing jobs. It's all been a lot of work, but I think it turned out really well.

Muslims get a slightly different set of character traits; they don't get the Kinslayer, Crusader, Celibate and Chaste Traits. Instead, they get the Mujahid, Hajjaj, Faqih (Islamic law expert), Hafiz (has memorized the Koran), Sayyid (agnatic descendent of Fatima or one of Muhammad's uncles) and Mirza (child of a Sayyida mother) traits.

Lastly, Muslims get another set of honorary titles to hand out to their vassals. They all get a few special flavour events - especially the Chief Qadi - a position requiring an ecclesiastical education.

SoI_04.jpg

That's it for the Sword of Islam in this dev diary; next time I will go into the core dynamics of playing as a Muslim ruler.

THE 1.06 PATCH

Now then, here's some of the free stuff we're giving ya'll in the 1.06 patch...

First off, we thought the southwest corner of the map looked a bit dull, so we added a bunch of new provinces down there, representing the flourishing civilizations of the Manden people; Ghana, Mali and Songhay. The area comes with historical rulers (of course) and a new West African culture group. The region is rich but hard to reach.

SoI_05.jpg

For flavour, we have also made it so that duchy tier and above titles held by rulers of Iranian, Arabic and Turkish cultures are named after the ruling dynasty. For example, the Kingdom of Egypt automatically becomes the Fatimid Sultanate while the Fatimids are in power (though the original name is also used where appropriate.) In case the same dynasty holds several high rank titles, only the highest is named after the dynasty. Thus, we can have both a Seljuk Sultanate and a Sultanate of Rum, both ruled by the Seljuk dynasty. Randomly generated characters of these cultures automatically get a dynasty name suitable to name states after (ending with -id or -n, etc).

SoI_01.jpg

Lastly (for this dev diary), there are seven new creatable empires (the Arabian Empire, the Empire of Persia, Britannia, Scandinavia, Francia, Spain and Russia) and a whole slew of new de jure kingdoms, mostly to break up the old kingdom of Khazaria. Now, I know the addition of the new empires is controversial, but the creation conditions are designed to be fairly difficult to achieve, so the AI will very rarely do it. We want players to have the imperial option to strive for if they so desire - the Unions turned out to be a popular feature in Europa Universalis III.

SoI_02.jpg

Oh, and before anyone asks, patch 1.06 will be semi-compatible with old save games: you will be able to keep playing, but we're making no guarantees that the balance will not be completely upset, or that any added new provinces will be active and working.

That's it for now. Next week I'll talk about polygamy, decadence, and strong and weak claims!
 
I have a question about the new empires. The new empire of Spain will have that name or the name Hispania, as the Roman province located in the same place?

Regarding the new territories of Ghana, Mali and Songhay, will they will be available since 1066? Or will just show up later on when the Mali Empire and the Songhay Empire began to gain some strength, historically?
 
One of the most powerful and wealthy men to rule in Europe with massive swaths of land was still not even considered for a second to be an "Emperor" by his peers. He was a mighty King. That is it. He would need to overthrow the German Emperor in order to claim his title for himself if he wished it to be otherwise.
Referring to the strongest Christian kings in Spain as "Emperors" was not altogether unheard of.
 
I think the new empires should start titular, with hefty creation reqs, instead of already existing De Jure. You could still assimilate your lands into your Imperial title, but this would better reflect the fact that they are new creations unlike the old Empires.
 
Referring to the strongest Christian kings in Spain as "Emperors" was not altogether unheard of.

They called themselves that and foreigners laughed at them for doing so. The practice also both began and died in the first third of the game. It was forgotten by the mid-point.
 
Last edited:
I think the new empires should start titular, with hefty creation reqs, instead of already existing De Jure. You could still assimilate your lands into your Imperial title, but this would better reflect the fact that they are new creations unlike the old Empires.
This would need a few tweaks. (IIRC a titular dignity with Elective inheritance has its succession determined at the sole discretion of the title-holder.)
 
Okay, guys, I really need to speak about the new empires and I'm afraid I'll need to speak strongly and also afraid it won't be strongly in favour. Sorry. But this is just one of the things that matter to me.

Before we go any further, I fully understand this is alternative history. But (1) the start is supposed to be historical.

(2) In connection with the above (i.e. 1), I believe that a 'de iure' duchy, county, empire etc., which means 'by law' ('of right', more like, actually), like let's say, an exiled legal government vs the de facto rulers, should be something which really can be said to exist 'by law' as of the time-frame in which we are. And I'm not saying there needs to be a strict legal norm here, but some kind of 'of right' should apply here.

So we're getting to a proposed solution:

(3) Titular empire. You have already created titular empires. And creatable titular kingdoms. Can't you just enable creatable empires with scripted capitals? Or make it that the holder of e.g. 3 or more kingdom titles can create a Muslim-style (i.e. dynastic) empire? As history buffs (which I believe at least some of you have been before and probably all of you are by now, through sheer necessity), you must have heard about the 'Angevin Empire', 'Jagiellonian Empire' etc., both of which examples are mediaeval. And none of which actually had a sovereign of imperial rank. They were basically a closely aligned set of separate titles with separate rulers within one family. And short-lived. This type of empire could have the following characteristics:
- enable the elevated king to hold kings as vassals (with or without causing some friction by this) as the primary benefit;
- anger the 'real' emperors, i.e. Byzantium/ERE and HRE, while being considered fully acceptable by some of the Eastern tier 1 rulers, who are basically just that, i.e. some 'king of kings' and they're not really into the post-Roman semantics and bickering about the Augustus title (although the Caliph would have a separate sort of reasons to act like he's above everybody if he really insisted).

Also, you could just create a title upgrading mechanism via dialogue with the Pope or HRE (but I guess this should create a new title without consuming the lower title). Also, the Pope or Emperor could grant you a dynastic empire with fewer problems than if you just declared yourself to be an emperor (smaller or no prestige penalty, less piety penalty, less opinion penalty, less revolt chance, better marriage options).

(4) In connection with 3, I would like to remark that my problem is not with the title really (I'm all for dynamic title creation e.g. by upgrading lower titles or splitting (Saxony-this, Saxony-that, you know the drill)), but more so with the fact that provinces will be designated as being part of that empire. This means that in a historical scenario we will have provinces designated as already being 'legally' or customarily ('of right') part of a fantasy empire (e.g. Scandinavia). As both a history buff and an ex-lawyer, I feel like this would seriously damage the fun of the game for me, possibly make me stop playing. As in not a huge, massive knee-jerk reaction, but more like a 'meh' type of reaction.

(5) Don't get me wrong. If you made a fantasy expansion/conversion, I'd buy it. But I'd rather not mix hardcore alternative history with fantasy.

(6) Please note that if somebody wants his stuff to be de iure in an Empire of Scandinavia or some such, the only thing he needs to do is wait until said stuff integrates. Which is a fair price to pay. In fact, he's getting it easy. On the other hand, this will prevent me (and other guys who care) from seeing a de iure empire of Scandinavia or Francia on our maps.

(7) Speaking of which, just to be sure: Scandinavia did sometimes have a sole ruler but it was always a three-king (e.g. Eric of Pomerania). No imperial purple for that guy. Francia probably alludes to the Franks but in reality the Franks were always only a kingdom in their capacity as Franks. Charlemagne was King of Franks (etc. etc.) and Emperor of Rome (regardless if we accept his legitimacy as such and so on). There was truly a dude who considered himself an Imperator Hispaniae (BTW please be consistent and make it Hispania, like you did with France => Francia, if you must) and another who did the same in Britain, but those were singular oddities. Nothing to base a de iure empire on. Persia is okay, the king was a 'king of kings', so Persia definitely should be a de iure empire (which creates a problem with reflecting caliphal suzerainty where needed). Arabs don't really need an empire, you've got the Caliph for that. To finish France off, I suppose if anybody had seriously wanted to make an emperor there and actually succeded at it, it would probably have ended up being, 'Romanorum Imperator Augustus per Gallias', just like some old Roman titles were 'per Gallias' (per whatever in the Accusative case).

(8) The above (i.e. 7) leads me to note that an emperor in Europe basically meant a Roman emperor (with little exception). We could agree that these are semantics and what matters is the tier, not the exact title (e.g. the reason why we have kings and not dukes ruling the de iure kingdom of Poland in the game, along with a de iure kingdom of Lithuania) but even those 'high kings' and the like were not really emperors. Even though they would have had kings as vassals. But they were not 'Augustus' ('imperator' didn't mean that much per se). So...

(9)... so why not keep it Roman? Or keep some Roman reference? I suppose you could make it so that a Russian guy can declare himself emperor and get away with it (at least within his own realm) when he marries a Byzantine princess (especially when there is no longer an ERE on the map), like it really happened. Similarly, the French could make some fuss and soberly point out that it was they who preserved the original kingdom of Franks, so why did the Empire actually go to the Kingdom of Germany, unlike what was intended.

(10)... and with a weak HRE the local power-that-be could apply to the Pope or even force the HRE to allow him to become the local Roman Emperor. Emperor of Rome but with territorially limited actually governed area. Same old concept really.

(11) Or somebody could try and divorce the Roman Empire from Germany. Particularly someone Italian, already being King of Italy (or some other Italian king). Or, with some powerful prerequisites, the Pope could do something. After all, it was the Pope who made Charlemagne and Otto I. This should be easy to script: the imperial title is usurped but no lands or vassagales change hands or the ex-emperor or the denied heir retains what's otherwise appropriate, e.g. a German-culture emperor losing the HRE to France could get the Kingdom of Germany automatically created for him and maybe Burgundy if he has the provinces; basically any emperor or heir replaced in this way could have all available kingdoms in his lands created for him upon being outplaced. This would result in the HRE being a de facto titular dignity, as it basically should be anyway (IMHO but this is kinda subjective, I admit).

(12) Please realise that while the kingdom of Germany was a constituent kingdom of the HRE, the HRE's immediate territories don't exhaust the concept of the restored Roman Empire. The Emperors did claim suzerainty over Christian kings, as well as making decisions regarding matters outside their normal rule (e.g. elevating dukes to kings), they were also recognised as the relevant Roman Emperor by the 'Roman Church', i.e. Catholic Church, e.g. at mass), therefore they were rather universal (not just a German emperor). And many of the kingdoms ruled by those Christian kings had previously been parts of the 'real' (i.e. ancient) Roman Empire. Particularly Britain (except for the farthest North and Ireland), France (as Gaul), Spain (Hispania), but also Croatia (Dalmatia, to simplify things), parts of Hungary (Pannonia). In fact, if you really wanted, you could justify putting all of them in the de iure HRE.

(13) And at any rate you could probably make it possible to hold vassals of your own tier, albeit with certain penalties or limitations (e.g. vassals have to be of your dynasty or soundly defeated in war or you should have a claim of your own on the equal title that you're vassalising or there should be a vast difference in power between you two, you could only have a limited number of such vassals and this could hurt your taxes/levies or make the vassal more likely to revolt). This would work for Polish or Russian princes in particular but also Irish rulers, maybe some guys in Scotland. Please create creatable titular kingdoms there, BTW ;). This could result in a handful of small kingdoms and some kind of High King of all Britannia, and look cool. And be historical because kings and dukes really did that.

And, I'm really worried about the direction the game is going. First the Kingdom of Pomerania, now the Empire of Scandinavia. I really fear what's next. And once again, please note that you can satisfy the people who want custom empires and kingdoms by creating a mechanism to upgrade your title or just expanding the list of creatable titular titles. And they can still have their de iure overlordship asserted by waiting the 100 years to integrate. In fact, I would certainly make use, myself, of a realistic title upgrading mechanism.

If you asked me to summarise all this in one sentence: Feel free to make tons of creatable kingdoms or empires (including player-selectable names and arms, so that nothing prevents an Empire of Spain or Russia from being formed) but don't make it look like they already exist de iure ('by law'/'of right') from the beginning in historical starts. This should be a fair compromise. And it's all I'm asking.

(Or just make it a menu option, whatever.)


***

Also, since you're implementing the Hajj mechanic, would you be inclined to use it to reflect Christian pilgrimages? These would still be life-altering events, although not as powerful as the Hajj is to a Muslim. It could basically mean being away from your capital, unable to lead troops, you'd get piety, prestige, maybe a couple of adventures, occasionally get imprisoned or die, change your stats etc. The holder of a pilgrimage site (Jerusalem, Rome, Compostela) could receive some prestige and interactions with visiting rulers. Vassals and courtiers could ask you to let them go, they'd be unavailable until they returned... if they returned. And be very upset if you didn't let them. With time, perhaps new pilgrimage sites could begin to matter, e.g. prestigious bishoprics, counties with 3 bishoprics (or more), birth or death places of 'the Holy', 'the Chaste', 'the Monk', True Christian Knights and other extremely high-piety people after those died (there was Beatification in CK1), any place associated with a court chaplain who died via an event while converting a province.
I also agree completely. I totally understand that the introduction of many fantasy de jure empires is meant to enhance gameplay, but a 'Translatio Imperii' dynamics as the one you're mentioning (e.g. I king of Rus can become Emperor if I have some sort of claim on the possibly weakening Byzantine Empire; Italian or Frankish kings re-claiming the Imperial dignity from the German HRE and so on) can be both more historical and cooler in terms of gameplay, in that you should focus on diplomacy and dynasty building in order to be elevated to emperor rather than having to satisfy harder abstract conditions like controlling 80% or more of de jure counties and so on.

I also have to share the worry about the direction we're taking (Pommerania and then Scandinavia and so on). Yes, in EU3 Unions and such were popular features, because to some extent they were historically plausible given the time frame. Here, it's the Middle Ages and as we know people had much different ideas about what an 'Emperor' should be, have been.
 
"Lastly (for this dev diary), there are seven new creatable empires (the Arabian Empire, the Empire of Persia, Britannia, Scandinavia, Francia, Spain and Russia) and a whole slew of new de jure kingdoms, mostly to break up the old kingdom of Khazaria."

The word titular is not explicitly used, but a distinction seems to have been made between the empires listed and the intention to break up the kingdom of Khazaria with smaller de jure kingdoms. I don't understand history nearly as well as some here. This is just an observation about the phrasing used.
 
"Lastly (for this dev diary), there are seven new creatable empires (the Arabian Empire, the Empire of Persia, Britannia, Scandinavia, Francia, Spain and Russia) and a whole slew of new de jure kingdoms, mostly to break up the old kingdom of Khazaria."

The word titular is not explicitly used, but a distinction seems to have been made between the empires listed and the intention to break up the kingdom of Khazaria with smaller de jure kingdoms. I don't understand history nearly as well as some here. This is just an observation about the phrasing used.
If they splitted the kingdom of Khazaria they arguably did so in order to have many constituent kingdoms for the Russian Empire, hence no these empires would not be titular but de jure (of course also consider the 80% de jure counties requirement).
 
Just to make sure I'm looking at the map correctly:

Ghana/Songhai/Mali etc. will NOT have direct access to the Atlantic (at game start), is that correct? That would be good - watching one of the Christian states launch an amphibious invasion into that region would be a bit too weird.
 
All I can say are,

Super,
cool,
Awesome.

B)
 
For the record, the following British monarchs all claimed the imperial title Basileus to describe themselves; usually in the formula "Emperor of the English and of the whole of Britain" (basileus Anglorum et totius Britanniae). Cnut called himself "Emperor of All Britannia" (Basileus omnis Britanniae); he also used the title Imperator interchangeably with Basileus.

Aethelstan
Eadmund
Eadred
Eadwig
Eadgar
Aethelraed
Cnut
Eadweard

After the Norman Conquest, the new rulers contented themselves with the title of 'King' only, and didn't claim imperial honours (with one known exception, William the Conqueror described himself in one royal document from 1069 as victoriosus anglorum basileus "Victorious Emperor of the English"). Even so, the long list of examples I gave proves that there's ample historical precedent for a British monarch claiming the title of Emperor in-game -especially if the Normans lose in 1066.

Edit: the Great Seal of Edward the Confessor. Look at his title: :)

edward12.jpg

'Seal of Edward + Emperor of the English'
 
Last edited:
..You are using Greek and Latin in the same phrases and "Basileus", unless specifically used in the context of the ERE (where "... Basileon Basileuon Basileuonton" is implied), as a word means "King" in Greek.

Also: what's your source on that?

Edit: So.. Edward the Confessor didn't know the difference between Greek and Latin too? What about your bigger claims that Cnut used Imperator interchangeably with his title. Basileus is Greek for King and we know he considered himself King of all the English.
 
Last edited:
For the record, the following British monarchs all claimed the imperial title Basileus to describe themselves; usually in the formula "Emperor of the English and of the whole of Britain" (basileus Anglorum et totius Britanniae). Cnut called himself "Emperor of All Britannia" (Basileus omnis Britanniae); he also used the title Imperator interchangeably with Basileus.

Aethelstan
Eadmund
Eadred
Eadwig
Eadgar
Aethelraed
Cnut
Eadweard

After the Norman Conquest, the new rulers contented themselves with the title of 'King' only, and didn't claim imperial honours (with one known exception, William the Conqueror described himself in one royal document from 1069 as victoriosus anglorum basileus "Victorious Emperor of the English"). Even so, the long list of examples I gave proves that there's ample historical precedent for a British monarch claiming the title of Emperor in-game -especially if the Normans lose in 1066.
Ok, this pairs with the "Imperator totius Hispaniae" thing and can be ascribed, according to some previous poster, to the "oddities" category.

I would simply claim this is a stronger point in favor of having those empires de jure and creatable by powerful kings - with or without the inclusion of a 'Translatio Imperii' mechanic - rather than them being de jure from the start.
 
e.g. the reason why we have kings and not dukes ruling the de iure kingdom of Poland in the game
That is little flaming, because Poland has kings? Emperor of HRE or Pope in any way to negate the polish crown. gash, so, not supported, but not denied. In other historians wouldn't call them kings, like self-styled emperor of Spain.

@Down
Akjosch, true, but he said kingS.
 
Last edited:
Claiming an imperial title in documents and actually being accorded imperial dignity are not the same thing at all.

Also this, obviously. Anyone can call themselves Emperor and put on some fancy purple boots. Doesn't mean a thing until the other rulers hail you as such and you sit on the Imperial Throne. Just look at how long the King of England kept calling himself "King of France" on paper.
 
I also agree completely. I totally understand that the introduction of many fantasy de jure empires is meant to enhance gameplay, but a 'Translatio Imperii' dynamics as the one you're mentioning (e.g. I king of Rus can become Emperor if I have some sort of claim on the possibly weakening Byzantine Empire; Italian or Frankish kings re-claiming the Imperial dignity from the German HRE and so on) can be both more historical and cooler in terms of gameplay, in that you should focus on diplomacy and dynasty building in order to be elevated to emperor rather than having to satisfy harder abstract conditions like controlling 80% or more of de jure counties and so on.

I also have to share the worry about the direction we're taking (Pommerania and then Scandinavia and so on). Yes, in EU3 Unions and such were popular features, because to some extent they were historically plausible given the time frame. Here, it's the Middle Ages and as we know people had much different ideas about what an 'Emperor' should be, have been.

I understand that this apparently what the majority wants, but I certainly wasn't asking for these fantasy de jure empires:). So I agree that this will enhance the gameplay for many, but not mine; however I can understand it (won't say like though:)) if this is what the majority wants. Furthermore I too have my worries about the taken direction.
I do agree on the suggested 'translatio Imperii' dynamics.