Just what does the word "empire" mean?? (ck2)

[Ruwaard]

Going back to the period even before the migration of peoples Germanic tribal confederation didn't always have kings, but they did 'elect' dukes to lead them into battle or rather that's how the are referred to. Examples of these types of 'dukes' were Arminius, Widukind etc. In other words the office didn't only have Roman origins, but Germanic origins too (Herzog (or in Dutch hertog), a Heer is a German word for army, Dutch has a similar word heer, but that's only very rarely used in modern Dutch (in Dutch, the similarly written word heer (German equivalent Herr) means lord).

Though you're right that by the time of the Carolingians, it were commanders of 'military provinces defined by tribal settlement'.

Regarding Limburg, yes like Baden it was more like a courtesy. In this period there was a tendency to reduce the territorial extent of duchies; the duke as military commander of a 'province' lost authority over a number of counts too.
However these 'courtesy dukes' were even small by those standards, or you could say that they were ahead of their time.

Vratislaus II was granted a personal royal crown by HRE Henry IV in 1085. I also agree that it is an exception to the rule, which was hinted to as being possible again in the future (like during the negotiations of the Valois dukes of Burgundy with the HRE), but it never happened.
Regarding being subordinate it did indeed remain a part of the empire and as such the king of the Romans had (some) authority over it too, which happened a few times during crises with Rudolf I of Habsburg, Albert I of Habsburg (he made his son Rudolf (I), king of Bohemia, but he died during a seize, when he was establishing himself in his kingdom) and Henry VII of Luxembourg (he got his son John on the Bohemian throne).
There have been examples of vassal kingdoms too, but you could say that in a way Bohemia was the only 'stem duchy' left; I guess it was somewhat in the middle with an unique status in the empire (as the ranking imperial (as in of the realm) vassal with no equal).

Now that I think about it, before in later patches, much more kingdoms were added to the Holy Roman Empire, the in game representation of the position of Bohemia in the HRE wasn't done that badly in CK2. In the old versions the kingdom of Germany and the kingdom of Bohemia, belonged de jure to the HRE (as long as they are a vassal kingdom the 'imperial' crown authority and investiture laws apply, whereas any kingdom of Italy or Burgundy can set their own royal crown authority and investiture laws even as vassal kingdoms), whereas the kingdoms of Italy and Burgundy did not, nor did they belong to any other de jure empire, since those too were only added in later patches.
Obviously you could argue that Italy and Burgundy should be in the de jure HRE, but that's another debate, since representing that gives other challenges.

 

[StephenT]

From the little I can connect, it seemed some form of Roman title was believed quite "essential" for barbarians overruners to claim right to rule beyond their tribes over local cities with Romanized populations.

I don't dispute that. The memory of Rome had immense prestige. But still, the fact that an Anglo-Saxon king claimed the title 'imperator' doesn't mean that by that action, he was asserting his right to rule the entire Roman Empire. There's no translatio imperii mechanism in play here, and he wasn't claiming to be reviving an ancient but defunct title. He was simply attempting to lay claim to the glory and authority that people still attached to the half-forgotten Roman emperors of old.

And remember, we're talking about the 10th century here. Roman rule had been dead in Britain for over 500 years. The former monarchy of Wessex that rose from the ashes of Viking near-conquest to seize power over the whole island of Britain inside two generations was a new institution, using grandiose Latin terminology to emphasise its power and prestige. And to be honest, it's as likely Athelstan was copying Charlemagne's titles as that he was harking back all the way to Rome.

Not quite how I read it. "Basileus" does not translate to emperor, but to tribal ruler, e.g. Byzantium distinguished between the titles of Basileus of the Romanii ("tribal" chief of the Roman people) and Imperator/Autokrator (a formal senatorial title assigning dictatorial powers over a geographic region - Roman empire had many "emperors", if you'll remember, assigned to different regions). True, Byzantine emperors in later years (particularly after Heraclius), used the "Basileus" more commonly than "Autokrator", but it does not linguistically translate to emperor.

I disagree here: I think that 'basileus' evolved in meaning; it may have meant 'king' in classical Greek, but after the time of Heraclius it came to mean 'emperor' instead. The big diplomatic dispute between Charlemagne and the Byzantines was whether they would concede to address him as basileus, the same title their own emperors used.

Certainly the Anglo-Saxon kings seem to have used the titles 'basileus' and 'imperator' fairly interchangeably in their charters and proclamations, without the strict distinction of meaning you claim. Real-life politicians tend to be less than precise about the words they use, to the frustration of later political theorists.


Incidentally, if you want an example of a tribal-based duchy title, what about the Counts of Rouen claiming the additional title 'Duke of the Northmen'? The title of the ruler of Normandy was dux Normannorum for two centuries, and only became a territorial title, dux Normannie, from Henry II's reign onwards, and it wasn't made official until John's reign.

 

[liamgamer55]

As far as I know, that is the only king which was ever subordinate to a Holy Roman Emperor.

So realistically, the thing that would make sense to an extent would be to make the "King of germans" an emperor tier title? Or perhaps all kingdom titles should be able to be upgraded to emperor tier (so that for instance the king of england could have the king of wales as a vassal).

 

[unmerged(75409)]

So realistically, the thing that would make sense to an extent would be to make the "King of germans" an emperor tier title? Or perhaps all kingdom titles should be able to be upgraded to emperor tier (so that for instance the king of england could have the king of wales as a vassal).

But emperors cannot be vassals to emperors so you aren't solving the problem.

If the HRE was to ever lose the imperial dignity (to the French maybe?) through another round of translation imperii, I doubt the kings of Bohemia would be content to remain their vassals. It would be hard to argue why one king should be subservient to another. They would claim that they bowed the knee to the German emperor, not the German king. If the German king felt inclined to disagree, he would probably try to crush Bohemia and have them downgraded to a duchy.

The system as it is in CK2 makes somewhat sense. Kings should not be vassals of kings. At least not the kings of continental Europe - the petty "kings" of Scotland and Ireland are another matter.

If one was to code events for CK2, that let you have a translatio imperii within the Catholic world, where the crown of the Roman Empire passes to another king than the German-Burgundian-Lombard guy, you'd have to construct it around some basic assumptions:

• Within central-western Europe, i.e. in Germany and all adjacent/culturally linked kingdoms, (France, Italy, Lotharingia, Burgundy, Denmark, Bohemia and Poland), there can ever only be one empire-level title.
• The guy who owns this empire-level title *is* the Holy Roman Emperor. He tolerates no other emperors within central-western Europe, since all the kingdoms in this area share the Roman-Frankish-Catholic cultural tradition and Charlemagne's legacy in one way or another. (Having been founded, subjected, or vassalized by the Franks.) If any king from that area were to call himself "emperor" too, that would degrade his dignity and turn the guy into a rival to be the heir of the Roman Empire.
• Rulers in Britain, Spain, Russia, Scandinavia north of the Baltic sea, Hungary or beyond can have emperor level titles if they want. They aren't rivals to the Roman-Frankish-Catholic cultural tradition and Charlemagne's legacy, so the "Holy Roman" emperor can tolerate it if they call themselves emperors too. It doesn't degrade his dignity if they do.
• If you are a king in central-western Europe, you can become Holy Roman Emperor only by challenging the existing Holy Roman Emperor, and initiating a process of translation imperii. This involves being a super mega powerful multi-king, having the sitting emperor be a humiliated, broken and largely powerless man, and having the pope take recognition of this fact.
• Translatio imperii happens when all of the above is true. It's a process which will strip the existing HRE-title holder of the HRE title (destroy it), create a king-level title for him as a replacement, if he doesn't have one already (so he can keep his duke-level vassals), and re-create the HRE-title for the powerful boss guy who initiated the process.
• The HRE title is titular, so it has no de-jure king level vassals. (I have noooo idea how to prevent de-jure drift, though!!)

(Theoretically the kings in Spain, Africa and Britain could also claim to be heirs to the Roman tradition. But I would argue that Spain and Africa were "disconnected" from that tradition when they were conquered by the Moors, and Britain is separate because it is an island. Plus, it's just convenient to limit this "heir to the Roman empire" concept to the area mentioned above, and there is precedent for a British and Spanish "emperorship" being separate from the kind of emperorship that Charlemagne and his successors claimed.)

I think you could actually implement something along these lines using the existing CK2 mechanics. You'd have to code events that destroy and create titles as part of this process. (Is possible to create a character's top-level title??) Also remove all the de-jure empire level titles from central-western Europe.

Does anyone think this would be more fun and more satisfying, for fans of history?

 

[Sotof]

• Within central-western Europe, i.e. in Germany and all adjacent/culturally linked kingdoms, (France, Italy, Lotharingia, Burgundy, Denmark, Bohemia and Poland), there can ever only be one empire-level title.
• Rulers in Britain, Spain, Russia, Scandinavia north of the Baltic sea, Hungary or beyond can have emperor level titles if they want. They aren't rivals to the Roman-Frankish-Catholic cultural tradition and Charlemagne's legacy, so the "Holy Roman" emperor can tolerate it if they call themselves emperors too. It doesn't degrade his dignity if they do.

There is a disconnect here.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

There is a disconnect here.

Yes, it's where you highlighted the word "Scandinavia" but not the words after, "north of the Baltic Sea", in the second bullet point.

Although now that I think about it, I think my concept also works if one defines Denmark as being outside "central-western Europe" (the zone where there can only be one emperor). That way there can be an "Emperor of the North" and a Holy Roman Emperor at the same time. The North is small enough (in wealth/people/remoteness) that it's not a rival to the Roman tradition.

 

[Cliges]

I wouldn't quite go that far, but I do think they're going too far.

Consider this analogy. There's a country in Latin America whose full official title, translated into English, is the United States of Mexico. But if I asked you, "What's the capital of the United States?" you're probably not going to answer "Mexico City", are you? The United States of America is large enough and powerful enough and prestigious enough to have staked a claim to that

FWIW, it's Estados Unidos Mexicanos, which would translate more literally to "United Mexican States" rather than "United States of Mexico". It might sound like nitpicking, but I do feel that there is a semantic distinction. It's not just that the USA gets to claim the "United States" name, but that the meanings are somewhat different.

 

[gagenater]

FWIW, it's Estados Unidos Mexicanos, which would translate more literally to "United Mexican States" rather than "United States of Mexico". It might sound like nitpicking, but I do feel that there is a semantic distinction. It's not just that the USA gets to claim the "United States" name, but that the meanings are somewhat different.

This is IMHO entirely nit picking. Spanish Grammer dicatates that the descriptors go first and the final most important subjects go last. Thus the statement Estados Unidos Mexicanos means translated 'longhand' into English using the normal spanish word order rules - States (subordinate) United (more important than the states individually) into Mexico (the most important thing and subject of the phrase). The condition/position of Mexican states within Mexico is very nearly identical to the condition/position of U.S. states within the U.S.A. The constitutions are very nearly identical, both are led/ruled from a federal district washington district of Columbia - commonly Washington DC and Mexico Districto Federal - commonly Mexico D.F. Both went through a war of independence, had a phase where the states were more important than the nation as a whole, and then had civil wars that established the federal government as definately being in supreme control. If anything Mexican states now have less autonomy and freedom from the federal government than U.S. states do.

 

[Cliges]

The condition/position of Mexican states within Mexico is very nearly identical to the condition/position of U.S. states within the U.S.A. The constitutions are very nearly identical, both are led/ruled from a federal district washington district of Columbia - commonly Washington DC and Mexico Districto Federal - commonly Mexico D.F. Both went through a war of independence, had a phase where the states were more important than the nation as a whole, and then had civil wars that established the federal government as definately being in supreme control. If anything Mexican states now have less autonomy and freedom from the federal government than U.S. states do.

I make no statement about the respective governments of any country (nor can I see how anyone would extrapolate such a thing from my post); I merely note that it seems unlikely that anyone would *want* to refer to or think of Mexico as "United States". Consider, for example, the Spanish word "estadounidense". No one would ever use it to mean Mexican.

EDIT: Also, Estados Unidos Mexicanos *does not* mean "states united into Mexico". If one wants to play fast and loose, that might serve as a very free translation, but it is not the literal meaning and it is not correct even in an idiomatic sense..