Byzantine Succession

[Cidellus]

So, I'm wondering if co-emperors are a potential feature in the new game. The current Byzantine succession system employed in CK2 is better than the old, but still doesn't really fit into the reality of how it all worked.

In an ideal system to replicate the system under the Macedonians, it'd be largely similar to how it is now. There'd be an elective sort of monarchy where all the strategoi and the emperor nominate their own potential emperors. The difference would be that the nomination would be for the senior emperor, or the emperor with all the power.

Let's make an example.

Let's say you have badass Emperor named Basil, and he has four sons. His four sons are all crap, so none of the strategoi are backing them. They all back Theodoros, a badass general. They think he's neat. Emperor Basil wants his second son Leon to have the throne, though.

In the event of Basil's death, the throne WILL pass to Leon. However, Theodoros will step up with the backing of the provincial generals and demand the co-emperorship. If Leon refuses, there'll be civil war. If he accepts, then Theodoros becomes the primary ruler of Byzantium with Leon as figurehead co-emperor.

From then on, it'll be difficult for the legitimate line to get power back, as the military aristocracy is in charge. The difference between the position of Leon and Theodoros, though, will be that Leon's heir will inherit his co-emperorship. Theodoros's heir will not. Instead, when Theodoros dies, a new strategos with the backing of the military aristocracy will take his spot. This situation could change if Theodoros decides to dethrone the legitimate dynasty and seize the empire for himself, though this would likely have a disastrous effect on stability.

If the legitimate line wants to recapture power for themselves, meanwhile, they'll need to contest their co-emperor for control. This could come with civil war, such as when Basil II had to put down the rebellion of Bardas Phokas and Bardas Skleros. Might be easier if the legitimate line waits for an opening, too (easier to contest a brand new military emperor than an old one).

Could be fun. This obviously won't be in CK3, but maybe there could be a Byzantine politics DLC someday.

 

[ray243]

So, I'm wondering if co-emperors are a potential feature in the new game. The current Byzantine succession system employed in CK2 is better than the old, but still doesn't really fit into the reality of how it all worked.

In an ideal system to replicate the system under the Macedonians, it'd be largely similar to how it is now. There'd be an elective sort of monarchy where all the strategoi and the emperor nominate their own potential emperors. The difference would be that the nomination would be for the senior emperor, or the emperor with all the power.

Let's make an example.

Let's say you have badass Emperor named Basil, and he has four sons. His four sons are all crap, so none of the strategoi are backing them. They all back Theodoros, a badass general. They think he's neat. Emperor Basil wants his second son Leon to have the throne, though.

In the event of Basil's death, the throne WILL pass to Leon. However, Theodoros will step up with the backing of the provincial generals and demand the co-emperorship. If Leon refuses, there'll be civil war. If he accepts, then Theodoros becomes the primary ruler of Byzantium with Leon as figurehead co-emperor.

From then on, it'll be difficult for the legitimate line to get power back, as the military aristocracy is in charge. The difference between the position of Leon and Theodoros, though, will be that Leon's heir will inherit his co-emperorship. Theodoros's heir will not. Instead, when Theodoros dies, a new strategos with the backing of the military aristocracy will take his spot. This situation could change if Theodoros decides to dethrone the legitimate dynasty and seize the empire for himself, though this would likely have a disastrous effect on stability.

If the legitimate line wants to recapture power for themselves, meanwhile, they'll need to contest their co-emperor for control. This could come with civil war, such as when Basil II had to put down the rebellion of Bardas Phokas and Bardas Skleros. Might be easier if the legitimate line waits for an opening, too (easier to contest a brand new military emperor than an old one).

Could be fun. This obviously won't be in CK3, but maybe there could be a Byzantine politics DLC someday.

I think in part there needs to be a system to recording what commanders did in wars and battles. Characters need to have a record of how many victories they won for the empire, and that in turn will affect how much support they will receive from the army and etc.

 

[EU3NOOB]

The problem is the Empire didn't always have Co-Emperors.

Co-Emperorship worked more like one of two ways:

1) There's an uppity general/Strategoi/Noble/family member who wanted to become Emperor so as a concession the sitting Emperor would make them Caesar/Junior Emperor.

2) The Emperor wants to give his chosen heir much needed exposure to the inner workings of the Empire and thus crowns him Caesar/Junior Emperor.

How I would make it work would be something like minor titles in CKII. The person with the minor title of Caesar/Junior Emperor would be turned into the Imperial heir. However, I would make MUCH more dynamic, making it possible that the Caesar/Junior Emperor could usurp the Senior Emperorship through backroom scheming.

Oddly enough, civil wars as depicted in Crusader Kings happened very rarely in Imperial history.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

Much of the Byzantine succession was done by plots, not outright rebellion. Hopefully, even if other mechanics aren't there, CK3 can still represent this fact about the Byzantine Empire correctly with the very much advanced plot system.

 

[Mackus]

Co-Emperorship would be best abstracted as some sort of vivente-rege elective succession.
You get senate, represented as electors, voting in your co-emperor, who's succeds as senior emperor upon death of holder.
If there is no co-emperor when emperor dies, succesion defaults to primogeniture.

 

[ray243]

Co-Emperorship would be best abstracted as some sort of vivente-rege elective succession.
You get senate, represented as electors, voting in your co-emperor, who's succeds as senior emperor upon death of holder.
If there is no co-emperor when emperor dies, succesion defaults to primogeniture.

I don't think there is a need to default to primogentiure, but rather make it as one of the preferences of your electors. Yes, they might prefer it, but at the same time they might find other reasons to think why the son or daughter is not the ideal person to lead the empire.

You can have some system that "shores" up legitimacy depending on the circumstances.

 

[omega20056]

Primogeniture with the suitability of your heir determining whether or not they get couped or shanked would be best. Emperors made their sons co-emperor with such regularity than the Empire was de facto hereditary, even if the army, the senate, and the people could interfere.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

Primogeniture with the suitability of your heir determining whether or not they get couped or shanked would be best. Emperors made their sons co-emperor with such regularity than the Empire was de facto hereditary, even if the army, the senate, and the people could interfere.

But emperors made all their sons co-emperor, so primogeniture isn't really the right way to classify it.

 

[omega20056]

But emperors made all their sons co-emperor, so primogeniture isn't really the right way to classify it.

Yeah, it's more heir designation with primogeniture as backup and the possibility of interference from outside parties than anything else.

 

[Bulan]

Here is a solution that would be mechanically simple to implement for Byzantine empire(s). Successor states like Trebizond, Nicaea etc. would also use this governance system. Ignore the specifics of what words are used for what titles and consider the mechanical implications.

In short, Autokrat (i_byzantium) and Basileus (king tier titular) are separate titles and Basileus is the heir of the Autokrat.

I am using CK2 terminology:

The top tier empire title is Autokrator. A character can hold this title without being landed, similar to merc captains. All titles in Byz empire are de jure vassals of the Autokrator. The Autokrator can revoke Constantinople from any vassal except the Basileus without tyranny. If Autokrator has no demesne he is totally dependent on vassals for income/troops.

There is a second title, Basileus. This is a King tier titular title. The Basileus does not need to be landed and is resident in the imperial capital. Titles do not drift into or out of the Basileus title, similar of KoJ. The Basileus title always exists for polities where the top tier title is Autokrator and can't leave the empire or be inherited outside of it. If a character outside the empire wins a claimant war for the Basileus title they usurp the Autokrator title. The Basileus can have vassals but they are not de jure. The Basileus is the de jure vassal of Autokrator and is ALWAYS the heir of the Autokrator title. Inheritance of the Basileus title is per normal rules and can be legally changed by normal methods.

Autokrator always has a plot available to demand revocation of the Basileus title.
Characters will never voluntarily relinquish the Basileus title if they do not hold the Autokrator title so this resolves as a normal civil war. If the Basileus is unlanded and has no vassals or allies he loses instantly and either flees or is captured.

If Autokrator and Basileus are the same character, inheritance of both titles follows the laws for Basileus.

Vassals get an opinion malus if Autokrator and Basileus are the same character. Vassals get a -10 opinion malus for each demesne holding by the Autokrator that is not c_constantinople.

Vassals can faction to force the Autokrator title to be assigned to a different character, with a preference for assigning the title to the Basileus if he is an adult.

If for any reason Constantinople leaves the empire, the empire stops being the Byzantine empire and is a titular successor state with the same governance type but no de jure claim to its own territories. Autokrator character always have a special CB to retake Constantinople.

Duke tier vassals and below can voluntarily change liege by decision between the Basileus and Autokrator at any time and AI vassals do so if there is > 50 point opinion difference. The Autokrator cannot retract vassals from the Baisleus or revoke titles other than Constantinople.

This would allow simulation of many historical situations encountered by Byzantine empire without major mechanical changes to the engine beyond what was allowable in CK2.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

Vassals get an opinion malus if Autokrator and Basileus are the same character.

Vassals can always faction to force the Autokrator title to be assigned to a different character, with a preference for assigning the title to the Basileus if he is an adult.

So essentially if you do not designate an heir, your vassals will urge you to do so via faction. Am I missing something?

 

[Bulan]

So essentially if you do not designate an heir, your vassals will urge you to do so via faction. Am I missing something?

If you hold both titles the faction will more likely be to appoint some popular despot or general as Autokrat, controlling the empire while you linger as Basileus until he disposes of you so that he can get control of that title and appoint his own son or nephew to guarantee his succession. But if he turns out to be a tyrannical jerk vassals will switch allegiance by decision to you (increasing your power within the empire) or faction to put you back as Autokrator

 

[ray243]

If you hold both titles the faction will more likely be to appoint some popular despot or general as Autokrat, controlling the empire while you linger as Basileus until he disposes of you so that he can get control of that title and appoint his own son or nephew to guarantee his succession. But if he turns out to be a tyrannical jerk vassals will switch allegiance by decision to you (increasing your power within the empire) or faction to put you back as Autokrator

Perhaps another way to go about it would be dynastic legitimacy? How much and how invested people are in maintaining the dynasty? If the dynasty itself has a lot of value to the society as a whole, people might be happy with a child emperor with a regent ruling till they reach the age of maturity.

However, if the dynasty itself is not seen in high regard, then it is harder for a child-emperor of that dynasty to stay in power for long.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

Perhaps another way to go about it would be dynastic legitimacy? How much and how invested people are in maintaining the dynasty? If the dynasty itself has a lot of value to the society as a whole, people might be happy with a child emperor with a regent ruling till they reach the age of maturity.

However, if the dynasty itself is not seen in high regard, then it is harder for a child-emperor of that dynasty to stay in power for long.

I call for this mechanic to be implemented across all realms that have a concept of "dynasty".

 

[Bulan]

I think that dynastic prestige was supposed to represent this is CK2, but in practice its influence on regencies seems less important than opinion of predecessor. Fortunately it looks like CK3 has a much bigger set of properties tracked at the dynasty level.

 

[omega20056]

Byzantium needs a sort of hybrid monarchy-republic succession system in which the great families have palaces and familial prestige. Having more prestige than the imperial family can allow you to launch a war for the throne. The base succession is male-preference primogeniture, although heir designation is also possible and outside parties, such as the army, senate, nobility can interfere. I'm not sure the game could handle all of this, so what we get will be interesting. Straight hereditary primogeniture doesn't work, but neither does "imperial elective." There needs to be a hybrid succession that combines aspects of the two. Byzantine succession could honestly be a mini-game by itself.

 

[ray243]

Byzantium needs a sort of hybrid monarchy-republic succession system in which the great families have palaces and familial prestige. Having more prestige than the imperial family can allow you to launch a war for the throne. The base succession is male-preference primogeniture, although heir designation is also possible and outside parties, such as the army, senate, nobility can interfere. I'm not sure the game could handle all of this, so what we get will be interesting. Straight hereditary primogeniture doesn't work, but neither does "imperial elective." There needs to be a hybrid succession that combines aspects of the two. Byzantine succession could honestly be a mini-game by itself.

It would help if there is some sort of actual office-holding promises that allows you to place the supporters into position of power. Say if you back me, I'll make you the chancellor and appoint your family members into the other offices of the empire. Or you launch a coup with the promise to your supporters to make them the new ministers or marshal.

People weren't merely fighting for the imperial throne, but they were also fighting to get hold of offices they were otherwise excluded from.


Basically in order for the Byzantine succession to work, making office-holding an important part of the Byzantine empire is a must.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

It would help if there is some sort of actual office-holding promises that allows you to place the supporters into position of power. Say if you back me, I'll make you the chancellor and appoint your family members into the other offices of the empire. Or you launch a coup with the promise to your supporters to make them the new ministers or marshal.

People weren't merely fighting for the imperial throne, but they were also fighting to get hold of offices they were otherwise excluded from.


Basically in order for the Byzantine succession to work, making office-holding an important part of the Byzantine empire is a must.

By extension: making intelligent unlanded AI is a must.

 

[Nikolai]

Byzantium needs a sort of hybrid monarchy-republic succession system in which the great families have palaces and familial prestige. Having more prestige than the imperial family can allow you to launch a war for the throne. The base succession is male-preference primogeniture, although heir designation is also possible and outside parties, such as the army, senate, nobility can interfere. I'm not sure the game could handle all of this, so what we get will be interesting. Straight hereditary primogeniture doesn't work, but neither does "imperial elective." There needs to be a hybrid succession that combines aspects of the two. Byzantine succession could honestly be a mini-game by itself.

Sounds very interesting, but not sure how it would work for players in a dynasty based game...