Gavelkind... Is not that bad?

Simplethunder said:

Also; A lot of people seem to bash on gavelkind for being not "realistic". Gavelkind was actually an extremely common way of dealing with inheritance, even in kingdoms. The only difference is that the ruler did have a say in who got what, and we don't. But hey, can't have everything.

Click to expand...

This last point is exactly what we would like changed. We don't dislike gavelkind, but enjoy it and simply want it to be improved. Giving it some way to choose your heir would make it almost as powerful or interesting as the other succession laws. And we're well aware that gavelkind has a historical precedent, but not being able to choose your heir is just plain wrong for how it was practiced. The community has already thought of some great ideas that you should check out here http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?773328-My-Idea-for-Gavelkind

It's all fine and dandy until the game insists on giving your primary heir a duchy that doesn't have the Kingdom's de jure capital despite it holding your de facto capital. In my Wales game my capital is the Westernmost county of Deheubarth, but gavelkind keeps trying to give the rest of Deheubarth (where I'm focusing my development) to my second son and giving my first son my de fact capital and everything in Gwynedd. I'm just glad 2 of my 3 sons asked to become monks, and so I didn't have to deal with the irritation for my first succession.

Well, usually I solve the matter with conquering pagans lands and giving bishop titles.

I'd like the idea of the game forcing you to split the lands equally, in a sort of "Will" during gavelkind. As from what I've read it seems that's really how it was done. And would prevent a lot of the silliness and do away with the need for the capital issue that has a big thread about the problems that causes already.

Hmmm

Historically, Gravelkind was a legal thing - you had a limited say in who got what, really. Theoretically, one of Charlemagne's sons was supposed to be HRE after he died, but instead they ended up fighting amongst themselves.

As to how it works in game -

First son gets first Empire, Kingdom, and Duchy. If you have two sons and three Duchies, one in a "lesser" Kingdom, the Second Son will get that Duchy rather than one in the "primary" Kingdom even if you haven't created the second Kingdom. If you have a smattering of counties outside the primary De Jure Kingdom your younger sons are really out of luck.

Overall though, Gravelkind WAS an inferior form of succession, as was Salic (Agnatic) Law. All the Kingdoms that survived into the Renaissance instituted either Elective or Primogeniture successions - or had "Elective" monarchies that were usually de-facto Primogeniture.

Been reading a lurking here, a lot of people seem to plump for Primogeniture as the "default" objective. have to say - having played THREE Byzantine games, one from Old Gods and One from the Alexiad, that it's really not all it's cracked up to be.

In reality, most of the supposed Gravelkind kingdoms in the Early Medieval period were actually Elective where certain lands were willed to certain sons. That's true of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, and indeed of William the Conqueror's succession, where he selected his second Son against expectations (William's succession is also a good lesson on how to deal with family members rebelling.)

Gavelkind does give you a 30% boost to demesne limit. +10 to dynasty members and +5 to vassals. If you have a lot of titles and a lot of sons it can be problematic.

Seniority is also +10 to dynasty but -10 to non dynasty vassals. So if you are playing that might as well land all family members even though there will be claim wars between vassals because of titles. Medium CA needed.

People seem to love Primogeniture but you need High CA and it offers no bonuses and a -5 to dynasty.

Elective is -5 dynasty but a huge +20 to non dynasty vassals and no CA is needed. And you hand pick your heir. For gameplay elective wins. Now for RPG reasons you might want a different succession law. But elective is the best for game reasons.

SigurdStormhand said:

Hmmm

Historically, Gravelkind was a legal thing - you had a limited say in who got what, really. Theoretically, one of Charlemagne's sons was supposed to be HRE after he died, but instead they ended up fighting amongst themselves.

As to how it works in game -

First son gets first Empire, Kingdom, and Duchy. If you have two sons and three Duchies, one in a "lesser" Kingdom, the Second Son will get that Duchy rather than one in the "primary" Kingdom even if you haven't created the second Kingdom. If you have a smattering of counties outside the primary De Jure Kingdom your younger sons are really out of luck.

Overall though, Gravelkind WAS an inferior form of succession, as was Salic (Agnatic) Law. All the Kingdoms that survived into the Renaissance instituted either Elective or Primogeniture successions - or had "Elective" monarchies that were usually de-facto Primogeniture.

Been reading a lurking here, a lot of people seem to plump for Primogeniture as the "default" objective. have to say - having played THREE Byzantine games, one from Old Gods and One from the Alexiad, that it's really not all it's cracked up to be.

In reality, most of the supposed Gravelkind kingdoms in the Early Medieval period were actually Elective where certain lands were willed to certain sons. That's true of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, and indeed of William the Conqueror's succession, where he selected his second Son against expectations (William's succession is also a good lesson on how to deal with family members rebelling.)

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you've been misinformed about several points.

First off, the HRE as a political institution did not exist during the time of Charlemagne or his sons.

Secondly, Gavelkind existed in many forms within the game, and Paradox uses the term "gavelkind" (which was only actually done in the British isles) as a catch all term for many different types of succession. This is done for convenience.

Thirdly, no one is arguing that primogeniture is the "best" or "default" succession law. I would argue that in certain circumstances, every type of succession has validity.

Fourthly, your claim that gavelkind is an "inferior" kind of succession to primogeniture throughout the time periods of the game is ludicrous. Imagine that you are Genghis Khan. Your two oldest sons are powerful warlords who have both have helped you conquer continents and both expect some compensation upon your passing. They also despise each other immensely and your third son (Ogedei) is a considerable diplomat and you believe he is the best man for the job of Khan of Khans. So what do you do upon your death? You give Ogedei your emperor level title, and give Jochi (or his sons, as was the case) and Chagatai king level titles far away from each other. Now ask yourself, was there a better way to leave an inheritance than "gavelkind"? Cause I certainly can't think of any. Primogeniture and Senority would have torn Genghis's empire apart. Warlords fighting each other for power would have ended the Mongol Empire 100 years earlier.

Fifthly, William "The Conquerer" did absolutely nothing against expectation as far as succession goes for Normans. His oldest son (Robert) was given Normandy because he was always expected to inherit Normandy. He was raised to rule it, essentially. William's second son (William) received the lands William gained through his conquest (England) as per tradition.

I apologize for the massive wall of text.

Simplethunder said:

Also; A lot of people seem to bash on gavelkind for being not "realistic". Gavelkind was actually an extremely common way of dealing with inheritance, even in kingdoms. The only difference is that the ruler did have a say in who got what, and we don't. But hey, can't have everything.

Click to expand...

Besides the obvious Louis the Pious example (resulting in West Francia, Middle Francia, East Francia) of the Carolingians, as well as further divisions by the following generations (particularly Lotharingia, Provence, Italy), you also have Hispania. After Ferdinand I of Castille's death, he split his kingdoms (Castille, Leon, Galicia) amongst his three sons. But since they all had "claims" on each other, they ended up fighting and the lands were unified. Just like how Gavelkind is supposed to work in CK2.

Another notable (though not perfect) example is Charles V. In this case he abdicated (which isn't currently possible in CK2, aside from suicide when depressed, or suicide through assassination attempts), but he left Spain to his only son and HRE to his brother. (So split inheritance, similar to Gavelkind). In this case, the different lies of the Habsburgs did NOT immediately press their claims against each other!

EvilCatInTheHat said:

This last point is exactly what we would like changed. We don't dislike gavelkind, but enjoy it and simply want it to be improved. Giving it some way to choose your heir would make it almost as powerful or interesting as the other succession laws. And we're well aware that gavelkind has a historical precedent, but not being able to choose your heir is just plain wrong for how it was practiced. The community has already thought of some great ideas that you should check out here http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?773328-My-Idea-for-Gavelkind

Click to expand...

Everything this post says is right on.

SigurdStormhand said:

Been reading a lurking here, a lot of people seem to plump for Primogeniture as the "default" objective. have to say - having played THREE Byzantine games, one from Old Gods and One from the Alexiad, that it's really not all it's cracked up to be.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone say that. It's pretty commonly agreed upon that Elective is the best form of succession in the game, and I'd rank Open as close second. Hell, at this point I'd even rank Ultimogeniture as a better succession type that Primo.

I've always said gavelkind is great. When you can't expand fast as you have children just send second and third borns to holy orders or appoint them successors to bishoprics and maybe even get them lined up for a cardinal spot. Once you get rolling and can expand alot just hand out land to the extra sons. More often than not you will gain the ability to imprison and revoke some land from unruly vassals just hand them out to the sons. I hand things out to 1 year olds. I don't care if they marry stupidly. They will be stupidly setup to oppose my heir

Mann42 said:

Everything this post says is right on.
I haven't seen anyone say that. It's pretty commonly agreed upon that Elective is the best form of succession in the game, and I'd rank Open as close second. Hell, at this point I'd even rank Ultimogeniture as a better succession type that Primo.

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you!

Gavelkind seems great right up until you get yourself into a situation where you have 5 kids, 5 counties; and it splits them 1 to the primary heir; 3 to the second child, 1 to the third and nothing to the other two. Then within a week after succession the second kid starts a war to press his claim, because why not since he was given the three most powerful counties in the realm?

Or the other situation I was facing before switching to primo, where my heir got two counties nowhere near each other, the second son got 5 (5!) and the third got 1 (the current capital).

Mann42 said:

Everything this post says is right on.


I haven't seen anyone say that. It's pretty commonly agreed upon that Elective is the best form of succession in the game, and I'd rank Open as close second. Hell, at this point I'd even rank Ultimogeniture as a better succession type that Primo.

Click to expand...

I'm fond of tanistry myself.

EvilCatInTheHat said:

I'm sorry but you've been misinformed about several points.

Click to expand...

Jump down my throat much?

First off, the HRE as a political institution did not exist during the time of Charlemagne or his sons.

Click to expand...

Charlemagne was "Roman Emperor" after being crowned by the Pope - I'm sorry if you find my applying the term "HRE" to him offensive, but it's accurate as a shorthand, as his Empire was Papally declared "Roman" by the Pope - and the later practice of the Pope crowning Germanic Emperors comes from Charlemagne.

Secondly, Gavelkind existed in many forms within the game, and Paradox uses the term "gavelkind" (which was only actually done in the British isles) as a catch all term for many different types of succession. This is done for convenience.

Click to expand...

I realise there were variations - the game doesn't accurately model "feudal Elective" for England either, my point was that "Gravelkind" essentially serves as shorthand for "your ruler is constrained by Germanic Law", it stands for a certain way of doing things according to received custom, demonstrating the low authority of the King (as he cannot change the received practice).

Thirdly, no one is arguing that primogeniture is the "best" or "default" succession law. I would argue that in certain circumstances, every type of succession has validity.

Click to expand...

Not here specifically, I said I has seen it argued - and I have. If you dissagree let's not make a big thing about it.

Fourthly, your claim that gavelkind is an "inferior" kind of succession to primogeniture throughout the time periods of the game is ludicrous. Imagine that you are Genghis Khan. Your two oldest sons are powerful warlords who have both have helped you conquer continents and both expect some compensation upon your passing. They also despise each other immensely and your third son (Ogedei) is a considerable diplomat and you believe he is the best man for the job of Khan of Khans. So what do you do upon your death? You give Ogedei your emperor level title, and give Jochi (or his sons, as was the case) and Chagatai king level titles far away from each other. Now ask yourself, was there a better way to leave an inheritance than "gavelkind"? Cause I certainly can't think of any. Primogeniture and Senority would have torn Genghis's empire apart. Warlords fighting each other for power would have ended the Mongol Empire 100 years earlier.

Click to expand...

Ghengis Khan isn't practising Gravelkind, he's practising a kind of "Elective" succession in game terms where he's using his authority to select the candidate most widely accepted for his Empire. He's then Gravelkinding off his Kingdoms to his sons - you can do that in game by having Gravelkind for Kingdoms and Elective for your Empire in-game.

Fifthly, William "The Conquerer" did absolutely nothing against expectation as far as succession goes for Normans. His oldest son (Robert) was given Normandy because he was always expected to inherit Normandy. He was raised to rule it, essentially. William's second son (William) received the lands William gained through his conquest (England) as per tradition.

I apologize for the massive wall of text.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I disagree - Robert had every reason to expect overlordship of England, but his repeated rebellions against his father, his intermittent exile (his mother once secretly sent him money to live off) and his poor relations with his brothers resulted in William selecting Rufus to succeed him. What William I did was take advantage of Frankish/Norman custom which ONLY stipulated that he had to give Normandy to Robert, but not England. Again - bear in mind that England was still notionally an "Elective" monarchy when William died as the Normans tried (and failed) to take over the country rather than reforming it.

If Robert HAD succeeded his father he would have ruled both Normandy and England, which would make more sense, but the point is that William would have been "disinheriting" Robert by NOT giving him Normandy, but could give England to any of his sons. The idea that this was some special "Norman" custom at the time is fallacious - it was a deliberate act by the elder William to punish his rebel son, if it had been customary then Henry would have gotten more than cash.

This was clearly not "a thing" at the time - I would be happy to dig up a source but I'm on sabbatical from my University and I've just realised I changed the password for my login after Heartbleed and now can't remember it - so it'll have to wait until Tuesday.

I thought Gavelkind is not that bad either but currently I'm playing as Navarra and it totally screws me over.

Not that I would not be okay with some fair realm split up but it is simply "bugged", or so I would guess. My first heir and new character just got only 1 out of 8 demesne (plus the kingdom title), the second son got another 1 county and the Duchy title (Aragon), and my third son got 5 counties (including the capitol)! (*check* Oh, it seams the last one went with the Duchy to the second son but since he has almost the lowest possible stewardship (2 from his regent, no councilor) he passed it to some new Count right on.

The way I would want this is: The Firstborn gets both the kingdom and the Duke Title and then everybody picks counties: First the first son picks the capitol, then his brothers pick something outside the Duchy and De-Jure Navarra, then the first born picks something in the Duchy ... And in the end he has the capitol and the two hooldings in Aragon while his Brothers have 3 and 2 Counties respectively. That's how it should work, giving almost everything to the youngest makes no sense.

Solution to Gavelkind:

Don't have any more sons until you change your succession laws.

whosthebestcop said:

Gavelkind does give you a 30% boost to demesne limit. +10 to dynasty members and +5 to vassals. If you have a lot of titles and a lot of sons it can be problematic.

Seniority is also +10 to dynasty but -10 to non dynasty vassals. So if you are playing that might as well land all family members even though there will be claim wars between vassals because of titles. Medium CA needed.

People seem to love Primogeniture but you need High CA and it offers no bonuses and a -5 to dynasty.

Elective is -5 dynasty but a huge +20 to non dynasty vassals and no CA is needed. And you hand pick your heir. For gameplay elective wins. Now for RPG reasons you might want a different succession law. But elective is the best for game reasons.

Click to expand...

I use elective strictly gor rpg reasons. Being able to choose my character is important for my experince from a storytelling viewpoint.

hagagaga said:

Solution to Gavelkind:

Don't have any more sons until you change your succession laws.

Click to expand...

Yes - be Byzantine Emperor - usurp Gravelkind Greece - wait nervously for vassals to stop fighting each other.

Kind of funny how pagans are set up then. "Marriage model" quarantees a whole herd of children but Gavelkind benefits only those who have minimal amount of children.

I was content with that system for a while, but when Gavelkind started handing out my baronies within my capitol, it got riddiculus. I had a lot of sons and all sons exept my primary heir got a somewhat good deals. Some got dutchies with counties, some got a whole kingdom that was half my empire's size. Even the youngest son inherited 3 baronies within my capitol. What did I get? My primary titles + the capitol barony of my capitol and that is it. Now that is purposefully throwing sticks into player's wheels. How am I supposed to stand any chance in a pagan realm with one barony holding against the inevitable faction schemers, who are my over buffed brothers with their kingdoms and faction backers. Not to mention that it is a rule that every single vassal will at least back a faction at sucession.