I assume the Scandinavian Empire follows the borders of Kalmar Union, which was historical personal union of all Scandinavian monarchies. And Uralic Empire? Are you serious? There wasn't (and still isn't) any Uralic identity and back then there wasn't even Finnish identity. Finnish tribes had close contacts with Estonia and Livonia, but also with Novgorod and Scandinavian kingdoms. State formation didn't exactly follow any ethnic lines and some Finnish areas just naturally turned from allies or tributaries into subjects of the princes.
The Kalmar union never became an empire. Eric of Pomerania didn't pull it off either. Scandinavia has the benefit of being undisputably outside the borders of Old Rome, I guess, but I just don't see a de iure empire there. Nor do I thing the Norse were particularly sure that one High King should rule them all.
Other htan making you feel better about a map mode, what would hcange if they were titular.
More immersion through absence of obvious immersion killers. Empire at least doesn't show on the province tab but it's still bad. Frankly, just knowing they're de iure in the game makes me feel bad. Mind you, I wouldn't mind if they were de iure empires just because a dude formed a titular empire and defended the title for 100 years until all his kingdoms assimilated into it.
Titular empires sound like the best of both worlds to me. It doesn't make sense that "ahistorical" empires are recognized in 1066, true.
My exact point.
But it does make sense that a ruler of multiple Kingdoms who is not HRE or ERE might, eventually, want to call himself something more than just "Dude X, King of Here, There, Somewhere, and Elsewhere" and starts going by "Dude X, Emperor of The Heres" (stupid name, I know. It doesn't matter, it's an example).
Yes, many people wanted that. It's not a problem if someone in a game of CK2 manages to make that happen, as long as the conditions he has to meet are justifiable and difficult enough.
It might even make sense that the claim gets recognized outside his realm if he keeps at it long enough. Even the pope would eventually agree after 10 years or more that those Kingdoms are united under the same guy.
Yeah. Or recognition by an existing emperor or the Pope. Suppose HRE and ERE (or one thereof, depending who you are) get a CB on you along with perhaps a claim on your title (although they'd be scripted to destroy it upon gaining it, perhaps). If you survive, their claims run out etc., the situation is stable for you or your kids or grandkids, and the imperial dignity survives stably.
Maybe make it a decision chain, the first event is a vote among your vassals, the second a request to the pope(or whatever recognized religious figure you have - if any). If both pass, you have an Empire you can name yourself, and all your current holdings become part of it De Facto. Of course, it will require time for them to become De Jure parts of the empire, but this last mechanic already exist.
Yeah, one of the solutions I suggested was putting it on the decision tab or plots or ambitions. "Become Emperor", "Elevate Kingdom_X to an Empire", "Wrest the Holy Roman Empire from the Germans" (esp. if you're France).
I don't mind the new empires at all, Although I do think some of them are a bit small and thus maybe too easily achievable.
The total area of the British Isles is about the size of modern Poland, population density (ergo number of holdings) notwithstanding. That empire feels a bit local.
And Russian Empire IMHO is too easy as well. Those guys were at duke tier, only marrying into royal families but not being kings themselves. Jumping up as an empire basing solely on land wouldn't really have worked. For example, it took decades to introduce the title of Tzar even in Russia after the marriage to the Byzantine heiress (Zoe Palailogina, who married Ivan III of Muscovy, some manner of prince/duke, depending on how you translate his title), and the neighbouring kingdom of Poland (in union with Grand Duchy of Lithuania) refused to address the tzars as such in correspondence, writing instead to "princes of Muscovy" still. And the tzar couldn't prevail on them. (Tzar being king-tier despite the imperial etymology.)
I hadn't looked at the de jure empire map, so I didn't realize these new empires were de jure. I agree that doesn't make a lot of sense.
Thank you.
Though, how would making them titular work? You need a particular province to create a titular title, correct?
Yes, the scripted capital. But other conditions can be used and sometimes are (the most popular ones are religion and culture).
Tying the creation of an empire to holding one county would be at least as bad as making them de jure.
Other than the Latin Empire perhaps, I agree.
They certainly weren't lawful empires at the time, true, but this way it's about owning a certain amount of land in the area, rather than owning a particular province.
I think titular empires creatable through intrigue/ambition/decisions would be good. They could be named after your dynasty or by your primary royal (or ducal if you're a duke) title by default but you'd get the option to change the name (such as when naming children).
One of the main reasons for the new empires being de jure is simply so people know that (a) they exist at all, and (b) how to actually form them. Unless you've gone thru landed_titles.txt in some detail you wouldn't know either of these things were they merely titular.
Yes, but that shows that the solution is to make people aware of how to create titular titles. Making them de iure instead and putting them on the map is just one way to do that. There could be others.
Heck, even officially loosening the definition of de iure (to make it sound "vaguely tolerable" rather than "legally pukkah") would be a better solution that fictional de iure empires with de iure being what is.
But in that case he did not directly hold the titles, they were his vassals, I would image a man in control of 5 different kingdoms directly would consider himself above being, a King-Emperor, and I likethe titular emperor with de jure gained after being voted on by your vassals and the religious head works
Depends. Directly controlling kingdoms is not necessarily more prestigious than having kings bow their heads and even bend their knees to you. When deciding how to translate the title of an Asian ruler, for example, having kings as vassals is an argument to translate the guy as an emperor.
IMHO having one king as a vassal when you have a claim, and with some penalties (limited control, opinion problems, etc.) should be allowed when you're only a king. History knows some examples.
I don't mind them as de jure. If, say, I became Emperor of All Spain but there was still a bit of Galicia independent somehow, it's pretty clear that Galicia would fall under the purview of Spain and that if I change any laws in the Spanish Empire, Galicia ought to be notified because this does potentially impact them.
"Spanish Empire" or "Spain" sounds like Paradox is implementing the old and well-liked countries from Europa Universalis perhaps to attract players from there. Or capitalise on the familiarity of the concept. Why Francia and Brittannia but Spain and not Hispania? Or "All Spain" like that guy who called himself Imperator Totius Hispaniae?
Taking Spain as an example, a titular empire which can be formed once you obtain 3 Spanish king titles would be much closer to the historical situation than a de jure empire spanning the whole penninsula.
Yeah and perhaps limited to certain dynasties or primary titles. It's not like every king could do it. The idea behind that title was that some of the kingdoms were supposedly much senior in prestige compared to the newer ones. The better your link to the old Visigothic kingdom and its succession, the more likely you should be to get away with that. But IMHO the Imperator Totius Hispaniae was not about claiming the imperial dignity or trying to be above European kings. It was a device to assert superiority over local kings.
It would make such an empire much easier to form, but to balance that you could restrict it so only kingdoms in that region could fall under the empire. So if the emperor of Spain inherited for example the kingdom of Scotland he would have to hold that as a separate title and on giving it away it would always become independent.
Well, the emperors' ability to have kings as vassals is largely limited by de iure borders of the empires.
Which strengthens the argument that he was an emperor. Perhaps he didn't call himself an emperor in real life, but in game terms he was an emperor if he had kings as vassals. However his empire didn't stay together and wasn't reconstituted ever. So his empire didn't have any de jure land.
Being "better" than all the small-timers in your area didn't necessarily make you the protocolar equal of the Kaiser or the Basileus (who, in real life, could create at least titular royal titles when they wanted to elevate somebody).
The solution is creatable titular empires. There is a mod that allows people to create kingdoms based on duchies, and empires based on kingdoms. Paradox should have taken a similar approach.
Sounds good if requirements aren't too easy.
If i can throw myself in the pool here, Empire are per se multicultural. The only Empire that tried not to be was the IIIrd Reich (no godwin intended) and pretty much was an exception. Actually its silly to consider empires could be "de jure", the Emperor crown in the feodal world and laws can and could have only been bear by the man nominated by the Pope, in the gameplay timeline its the HRE. One could possibly claim Charlemagne crown if for example the HRE conquered France or the other way around. But for western Europe thats it.
As for eastern empires, the Russian one appeared after the fall of Byzantium and claim to be its de jure follower. Only muslim or pagan could create out of nothing but conquest empires. the only Emperors' crown in feodal Europe were the two romans one, the western and eastern. Other empires are just not legally possible.
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.
