I think the best solution would be to replace the emperor title with sort of a "high king" title. It'll be the same rank as emperor but it'll be more historical.
But would it not make more sense for a united cultural empire rather than just drawing random lines?
I like the Idea. Empires are cool; but not the gazillion dejure claims it gives.It would have made sense to add the ability to create a titular empire when you have four kingdom titles. Then after 100 years of de jure drift you would have a real empire, entirely justifiable by your alternate history.
Rome was multicultural and had a pretty much de iure position in the middle ages. So much so that the Emperor's claims to be able to meddle with the laws of European kings were not actually considered totally baseless. Sometimes things worked that way. The emperor could also create royal crowns within Europe. He was mentioned in some religious services, basically being the secular head of Christendom, at least in certain periods.
Basically, IMHO almost all of Western Europe could be depicted as de iure Roman Empire, and even the ERE would fall within the same de iure Roman Empire. Emperors would arise to rule parts of it as emperors if they managed to tap themselves into the Roman legacy and find recognition.
Heh, I wonder if the HRE should in fact be a titular title without ability to assimilate anything, transferable by inheritance but also through intrigue, wars, some actions with the pope.
most people fail to see that 'de jure' is a game element, if you want to question 'de jure' empires and remove them, then from a historical perspective you would have to remove 'de jure' kingdoms as well. 'de jure' is there to make it easier for the player to form kingdoms or empires, based on established historical entities.
having the freedom to form a kingdom out of let's say 4 duchies and an empire out of 3 kingdoms would give full dynamics and reflect how 'ream building' occured in history. some mods added this. either you make the game that open - and have a lot of people crying about authenticity - or you have 'de jure' realms prepared to help the player and the AI develop a close to real history - and again have a lot of people crying about authenticity.
I can't imagine any European Christian ruler would have dared label himself 'king of kings' -- purely because that title is often associated with Christ.
That is what ancient Persian rulers called themselves, though that was obviously pre-Christianity.
No. The idea of a state based on shared culture is not part of the politics of the time period.
The problem is while the HREmperor was the depositor of the dignity of the Roman Emperor, the Imperium (the power of the emperor) rest in the Pope.
I never heard anytime that the HREmperor was the head of Christendom.
The Emperor could not meddle with Kings law, those where sealed by the pope during the investiture and by the assembly of the peers or of the "representation" of the society. What I'm saying is that "emperor" is a title that is unique to Europe and no other could have in reality been legally created while the HRE was in place. King title in contrary like their equivalent in ancient Rome a dignity awarded no matter what the land beneath it could be created in the early middle age (see the Kingdom of Hungary), but once it was created it could not be "meddle with" unless the Pope or the previously mentionned assembly modify the rules.
This is a valid point, for example there were no de jure kingdoms of Finland or Aquitaine during this game period. Historicallly Aquitaine should be part of Kingdom of France, while Finland shouldn't be part of any de jure kingdom or divided between Sweden (Duchy of Finland) and Kievan Rus (Karelia).
While I haven't had time to play much with the latest patch, I doubt that the new de jure empires make game any less historical than those de jure kingdoms.
I think that biggest issue some people have with these new emperors (or call them high kings if it makes you more happier) is the Christian view about the Roman Empire.
But historically becoming king of kings isn't impossible as there are several occasions during the middle ages when king was overlord of other kings, but from gameplay perspective there must be empire-tier to make that possible.
I can't imagine any European Christian ruler would have dared label himself 'king of kings' -- purely because that title is often associated with Christ.
I think the best solution would be to replace the emperor title with sort of a "high king" title. It'll be the same rank as emperor but it'll be more historical.
I never claimed that it did, I just presented my theory why Finland is part of Scandinavia and not part of Uralic, Russian or some other de jure empire. It's the same thing as in EUIII, where Scandinavia gets cores to Finland when you create it. Generally these new empires belong to same category with unhistorical kingdoms, in CKII, EUIII and other Paradox titles, which player can form if he plays well enough. I wouldn't mind strictly historical setting, but these kingdoms and empires are popular among the players.
What I find strange is that they still left kingdoms out. Where is the love for the Central European kindoms? You could just make up a "Carpathian Empire" of whatever and inculde them in one.
I love this idea.
I'm no fan of Aquitaine in a sense that would exaggerate the role of Kings of France as foreigners, invaders, usurpers and such like, even though I think the Kingdom of Aquitaine is not entirely out of the question, along with Frisia. Probably better than Bavaria.
Fantasy empires by definition make the game less historical than exaggerated/stretched tribal kingdoms from the post-Roman era. The degree of ahistoricity is higher and also the territorial extent is, meaning the impact is greater on at least two important levels.
I'm not so sure of that and one could always move emperors one tier up and put "high kings" in between. I think especially dukes should have the ability to have other dukes as vassals (1-2, not 5 as a rule).
So even though national states didn't really exist, national sentiments did. And tribal sentiments certainly had not died. It was only certain parts of Europe where they eroded more than elsewhere.
Something that has never existed before cannot be considered a de iure empire. De iure is something that has been in existence so long before that tradition holds it as a viable concept even despite a temporary collapse (e.g. 50 years without a king).
Oh pahleeeze must we always have these "not historically accurate" threads? CK2 isn't about being historically accurate or an historical simulation. I don't know why these historians think it is or even buy these types of games. It's nothing more than a risklike game in a medieval time period with somewhat plausible settings and units and nothing more than a dynasty building game through the ages with a teeny weeny bit of strategy involved. Hell my 8 year old nephew can play this game and he doesn't care anything about historical. lol
Calling it a lack of accuracy is odd. Can empires not be formed out of nothing? Did the Roman Empire conquer and usurp some other empire I'm not aware of before it could be called an empire? And how did one empire split into two empires, if the only way to become an empire is to take over one that already existed?