I'm pretty sure Boleslaw the Bold crowned himself as the sovereign king in the year 1076, when the kaiser Heinrich was excommunicated by Pope gregory VII and had no power to stop him, but before that, Boleslaw was his direct vassal. I'm not any kind of history expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but Poland should be in similiar situation as Bohemia in the 1066 start. Even if the vassalege lasted only 10 years after the start, Poland should be part of the empire and maybe had some kind of events/decisions that would help it in becoming sovereign state.
Why is Poland independant of HRE in the year 1066? Its king was emperor's vassal.
- Thread starter 4k547
- Start date
-
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.
Because Boleslaw was powerful enough to actually reign autonomously from HRE, unlike Bohemia of that time period. I'm not sure if this "vassalage" ever was a thing other than on paper, but, either way, as my previous point stated, even if he ever was effectively the HRE vassal, he was strong to reign independently (autonomously) from HRE, which is represented by having Poland as an independent kingdom.
EDIT: While there was a certain recognition of HRE's authority, but Poland was still powerful enough to be pretty much independent from it by the time Boleslaw was still reigning as a Duke.
What do you mean? The whole country was big mess when he got to the power, 20 years after basically the whole country was burnt to the ground. The only reason the Poland existed as a country is the emperor's troops (only 500 men but it was a threat to not mess with a new king) helped Casimir the Restorer uniting it. Boleslaw menaged to crown himself only and i repeat, only because he was on the pope side in the investure conflict. If not the excommunication, Poland would have really hard time in becoming independant. The vassalage thing wasn't "just on paper". Casimir even asked the Kaiser after taking silesia from Bohemia if it was OK with him and agreed to pay the tribute to bohemians for it.
I'd say no for gameplay reasons as well, since if Poland is part of the HRE it will never get free, since the HRE is very tough to beat.
The new vassal limit may change all that though...
The new vassal limit may change all that though...
I think that the HRE was more like a suzerain of Poland than a liege. Regardless they would be a non de jure vassal of the HRE, if they want to represent this. This still doesn't change gameplay considerations.
By the same token, England should be a vassal of France after the Norman conquest...
Isn't low crown authority meant to represent very loose bonds towards the liege ?
.png){kind=avatar}
It was more like a tribute than a vassalage. Same thing was with Mieszko I - he was de facto independent, but had to pay tribute to emperor.
If Paradox ever make tributes (they said they wanted to), it will be the way to represent HRE-Poland relations.
If Paradox ever make tributes (they said they wanted to), it will be the way to represent HRE-Poland relations.
That's why I would like to add some event chain like in EU4 that would lead to excommuniation of the Kaiser, feudal levies close to zero and Poland declaring independance. I don't know if it can happen tho but really it's a pretty huge deal.
Not really, unless a (Germanic) vassal of HRE conquered Poland.
I wouldn't make them a de jure part of the HRE, late game the eastern de jure border of the HRE will change.
Bolesław stopped paying tribute from silesia in somewhere between 1060 and 1070, after king Bela I death (1063). Poland was in conflict with Bohemia before 1070. HRE emperor was trying to prepare campaign against Poland but he failed. In late 1060s Bolesław was independent even if formally Poland still was a vassal of HRE.
This sort of situation is another place where the ability to sign a treaty of alliance (or however you would want to retext the decision to say something) without there being a marriage would be desirable.
I know, but this means only that, the emperor have no control over Poland anymore.
In 1066 the situation of Poland was in some way very different from Bohemia's, e. g. with regard to the ecclesiastical administration. After the baptism of Mieszko I. in 966 and the foundation of the Bishopric of Poznan (968) Poland was subject to the Archbishopric of Mageburg only for 30+ years until the Congress of Gniezno in the year 1000. With the foundation of the Archbishopric of Gniezno under Boleslaw I. Poland got independent from the Archbishopric of Magdeburg and therefore also to some extent from the HRE.
Although in Bohemia the Christianisation started more than 100 years earlier (around 863, St Kyrillos and St Methodios), the first bishopric was founded in Prague (973) almost at the same time as in Poland. Due to political reasons Bohemia was subject to the Archbishopric of Mainz - one of the most important bishoprics in the HRE (being elector of the Emperor) -, and this situation did not change when the second bishopric (Olomouc) was founded in 1063. Not until 1344 (promotion of the Bishopric of Prague to Archbishopric) did Bohemia and Moravia become somewhat independent from the ecclesiastical administration of the HRE.
Only if you want to spend the entire game watching Poland being invaded by the HRE...