Serving Two Masters, or Plurality of Homage in the Middle Ages and its Potential Application in CK3

[Torngasuk]

In Crusader Kings II, vassalage is effectively absolute across the board, all vassals owing liege homage to their feudal superiors, absolute unquestioning loyalty and obedience to their one true lord and master. It has been previously discussed and considered that this is not truly reflective of the medieval experience, particularly in some noteworthy cases such as English rule over Normandy and Aquitaine, as it was entirely possible to be in vassalage to two different feudal superiors simultaneously, or to be independent in one title and in vassalage for another. Now, there has been some debate as to how such a mechanic would be implemented, and potential feudal conflicts resolved, so, being a strong proponent of this feature’s implementation in Crusader Kings III, I thought I might do a modest examination of the mechanics of plural homage in the middle ages. Let’s open with an overview of exactly what it is that we’re talking about:

It were superfluous as tedious here to detail the various attempts to accomplish the first object, to regulate the complication of a system in which land was held in vassalage, not only, in the ordinary course, of a superior, but of an equal, and even by princes of their own ecclesiastical vassals - to give stability to the condition of sub-vassals or vavasours - to secure fiefs from alienation or division, or to guard against the detention of lapsed fiefs by mesne lord or suzerain.

The only point that can be historically important is the solution of the constantly occurring difficulty of holding land of two different lords, who might take opposite sides in civil broils, of two monarchs who might go to war with each other. The position was not so rare, as, to mention only two, the Earl of Flanders was a Prince of the Empire and a Peer of France, the French Earl of Toulouse was a vassal of the Emperor for his marquisate of Provence, and of the Kings of England and Aragon for divers parts of his immense principality; yet it is not a little remarkable that scarcely any mention occurs of difficulty felt upon the subject, except indeed in the case of Raymond, one of those very Earls of Toulouse who did homage to so many sovereigns, but in the first Crusade refused, it is said, to do homage to the Constantinopolitan Emperor, alleging, according to some writers, as one reason, that it was wrong to have more than one Liege Lord; and of the Comte d'Evreux, who being summoned to do homage to Robert Duke of Normandy and Henry King of England, refuse to render it to both upon the same ground.

It appears that in the regular service of a common sovereign, the vassal of two mesne lords obeyed in person the first summons he received, and sent to the second the men of the fief, held of this latest summoner; or if the summonses came simultaneously, chose which lord he would attend in person. When the two lords mesne or paramount were at war with each other, he either formally renounced his homage to the one in order to serve the other, or avoided the necessity of so doing by serving neither, but sending to both pecuniary compensation for the personal service his himself and his men.

It might be supposed that such renunciation of homage would have included the surrender of the fief for which it was due; but it does not appear that any Earl, either of Flanders or of Toulouse, ever thus ceased to hold lands of any of their respective liege lords: and in point of fact it is certain that the Plantaganet Kings of England habitually thus renounced their homage to the Kings of France prior to declaring war against them, without for an instant dreaming of the resignation of their half of France.

So, we’ve established a reasonable baseline here for the workings of what I’ll continue to refer to as plural homage. You, the feudal lord, may be in vassalage to multiple overlords for different titles that you have inherited or been granted. If you are the independent duke of Brittany, and you inherit the title of Count of Artois within the kingdom of France, then you would remain sovereign in Brittany, but be in vassalage to the King of France for the county of Artois, and owe him military service and financial aids for that territory. If you hold the French duchy of Burgundy, and you unite your lands by marriage with the Imperial county of Burgundy, then your heir will have two masters, owing homage to both the King of France and the Holy Roman Emperor.

If your two superiors should come into direct conflict with each other, then you have certain options available to you. You may remain neutral in the conflict, in exchange for providing monetary support to each side in lieu of the military service that you owe. Alternatively, you may choose a side, renouncing your homage to the other: the logical outcome of this situation is that if you pick the losing side, then the territories you hold in a now-hostile land will likely be revoked, while in the event that your side is victorious, then they may be annexed wholesale to your realm. Or, if the outcome of the war proves inconclusive, and a peace is negotiated, then regardless of your choice things may return to the status quo ante bellum.

Now, while the most famous examples pertain to the English monarchy's holdings in France, this was by no means a phenomenon limited to their extensive demesne. Charles the Bad, King of Navarre, was also the Count of Evreux in France, his father the count having obtained that throne by marriage to its queen, Joan II. Even after his coronation as a sovereign monarch, Charles continued to serve as a military commander and lieutenant for his father-in-law, John II of France. Malcolm the Maiden, King of Scotland, was in addition earl of Huntingdon among the English peerage. Several dukes of Brittany simultaneously held the earldom of Richmond in England, though they tended to lose and regain the title from time to time, giving the shifting alliances of the Hundred Years' War.

It is known that the bond which united the vassal with his seigneur could take two forms: (1) simple homage; (2) liege homage [by which the vassal gave the promise of absolute loyalty].

The second was much stronger and tighter than the former. Simple homage involved all the seigneurs from whom a vassal had received a fief: and since it was permitted to receive fiefs from different hands, the same vassal could pay homage in equal measure to several seigneurs to whom he was bound by the same obligations. Also, when two of these seigneurs were engaged in a fight, it was impossible to know which of them their common vassal had to follow. Liege homage, on the contrary, did not allow this competition. The vassal who gave it was committed to serving his seigneur, favoring him against all others, even against other seigneurs from whom he might have received a fief. It is true that liege homage was often defined otherwise. We will not examine here these different interpretations. All that we want to retain here is that, in any case, in the opinion of everybody, a liege vassal had certain characteristics which gave origin to his obligations and to a particularly strong dependence.

That's not to say, however, that this principle is or should be universally applicable. I might suggest that it be tied to the concepts of a king's authority and the strength of the crown. A high-handed monarch with a strong control over his vassals might insist on the application of liege homage throughout the realm, that his vassals shall have no other lord before him, and that in the event of any potential conflict of interest they be forced to side with him regardless of their personal preference. A weaker king, conversely, might request or expect that liege homage be done to him, but be forced to settle for simple homage for vassals too powerful to threaten into submission: precisely the case, one might say, that the French kings found themselves in when it came to their overmighty English vassals.

Henry II several times admitted that he was the 'man' of the French monarch, doubtless still thinking of his homage as purely personal. As duke of Normandy, he travelled to Paris in 1151 to render homage to Louis VII, although earlier dukes had insisted on doing their homage only on the Norman frontier. At that time, Henry needed the French king's recognition to buttress his claim to the duchy against a rival, Eustace of Boulogne, son of King Stephen. In February 1156, Henry again did homage to Louis for Normandy, and also for Anjou and Aquitaine, thereby becoming the first crowned king of England to do homage to the French ruler. The ceremony took place one more on the Norman frontier. Again he needed his suzerain's guarantee of his authority over his 'empire', this time in the face of claims by his younger brother, Geoffrey.

An English chronicler wrote that in 1183, Henry II did homage and fealty 'for all his holdings across the sea to King Philip of the French, for which he never before this [occasion had] wished to do homage. The superior prestige that the Capetian king enjoyed as Henry's lord was displayed during Henry's expedition against Toulouse in 1159, when he raised the siege of the town because of Louis's presence there. He dared not threaten the life of his lord, the anointed Rex Francorum. Henry allowed his heirs to do homage to Louis VII and Philip Augustus for continental territories nominally in their hands, giving the French monarch a means of fostering hostility between father and sons. Young Henry did homage for Anjou in 1169, acknowledging that he held it as a fief of the French king and receiving recognition of his title of French royal seneschal, belonging hereditarily to the counts of Anjou.

Plural homage also creates an interesting scenario for potential claim wars. If you inherit a foreign title that is in vassalage to another king, then you now find yourself in a situation where another vassal in that realm may initiate a claim war against you for the territory you inherited, putting you in the position of fighting a war on what was previously foreign territory without having triggered a war of annexation on the part of your lieges: a new form of international-subnational warfare. Similarly, as a vassal you may fight for your claim to a foreign kingdom of equal status your liege without worry that your current holdings will be a point of conflict between you once you attain victory and independence.

Throughout the struggles between the Popes and the Emperor Frederick II, Louis would not be induced to assist in a persecution of the Emperor which he considered unjust, nor permit one of his sons to accept the kingdom of Apulia and Sicily, when the Pope declared that Frederick had forfeited it. He could not, however, prevent his brother Charles, Count of Anjou, from accepting it; for Charles had married Beatrice, heiress of the imperial fief of Provence, and being thus independent of his brother Louis, was able to establish a branch of the French royal family on the throne at Naples.

Baldwin IV., Pulchra Barba (Comely Beard), Count of Flanders, succeeded his father in 989, when he was still under age. He married first Eleanor, daughter of Richard, Duke of Normandy, and second Olgina, daughter of Frederick I., Count of Luxemburg. He fought successfully against King Robert of France and the Emperor Henry II., and obtained from the latter Valenciennes, as well as the island of Walcheren and other parts of Zealand, as an imperial fief. Thus the counts of Flanders became feudatories of the empire, as well as of France. He died May 10 , 1036.

To find instances of plural homage, one often need only look to the nearest border between any two kingdoms: marital alliances tending toward having little regard for shifting lines on a map. The county of Flanders was divided into Crown Flanders, a French territory, and Imperial Flanders, a Holy Roman territory, with the counts of Flanders keeping their feet planted firmly in both camps to maintain functional independence, in addition to shifting inheritances resulting in occasionally also holding the imperial county of Hainaut and marquisate of Namur, a situation later variously inherited, purchased, and annexed by the Valois dukes of Burgundy, themselves with as many imperial holdings as French.

Charles of Anjou, as mentioned above, is one of the more exceptional examples of plural homage. He held the counties of Anjou and Maine in the kingdom of France, the counties of Provence and Forcalquier in the Holy Roman Empire, and seized by force the kingdom of Sicily, simultaneously independent and a papal fief, the pope being in the habit of shopping the title around to ambitious princes whenever the current holder happened to displease him, this being the very method by which Charles claimed it. His nemesis-turned-ally, Barral of Baux, had a son named Bertrand, who not only inherited his French titles but was also granted the title of count of Avellino in Italy by the victorious Charles, the house of Baux later becoming prominent in the Neapolitan kingdom. Another avenue to explore: players who assist a fellow vassal in claiming a kingdom might find themselves rewarded with a foreign county.

To look further east for examples, Wenceslaus II was a king of Bohemia within the Holy Roman Empire, but also for a time king of Poland, and was further offered the kingdom of Hungary. The counts of Cilli gradually built up a substantial demesne for themselves, with holdings spread throughout Slovenia, Carniola, Styria, Carinthia, and Hungary, being both preeminent vassals of the Hungarian crown and (eventually) princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Gerhard the Great, imperial count of Holstein-Rendsburg, placed his nephew Valdemar upon the Danish throne and assumed the regency, and was in return rewarded with south Jutland as his own hereditary fief. Gerhard offers us another example of something that would make for a compelling gameplay experience: the opportunity to involve one's self in the internal politics of another kingdom, opening up a second potential avenue for wealth and prestige if you find your ambitions being frustrated in your current realm.

In conclusion, I would propose that plural homage was a sufficiently significant and reasonably common phenomenon in the medieval period as to warrant its inclusion in Crusader Kings III, that its mechanics should be sufficiently straightforward as to prevent it from being indecipherable from the player's perspective, and that it offers both a more immersive gameplay experience and a wealth of new ways for players to interact with the game world. Its implementation would remove pointless de jure conflicts over minor comital inheritances, given the AI's obsessive sense of completionism when it comes to its territory, would keep borders more in line with what would be expected, and would reduce blobbing based on inheritance.

Crusading mechanics would be also be significantly enhanced, as the victorious crusaders were not inclined to pass their conquests on to the nearest available relative, nor did they resign their family holdings or attempt to incorporate them wholesale into their new kingdom. At the same time, it would allow players more freedom to explore what would have previously been untenable marital-inheritance strategies, open additional council positions to serve on in the case of multiple lieges, would increase the number of characters available for player interaction, and offer manifold new sources of intrigue and conspiracy to explore. In short, I feel that plural homage would be a vital and compelling gameplay that would mark a major improvement in Crusader Kings III over Crusader Kings II.

 

[Prince Ire]

Would I like this? Yes.

Unfortunately, based on paradox's decision to tie baronies directly to counties and their simplification of combat, super knights, and ahistorical peasant levies, there's basically zero chance of it being implemented. Paradox wants to focus on memes and fantasy, not historical immersion and complication.

 

[Henry IX]

I would also add that this gives higher title holders something to do other than blob - force their vassals into tighter liege homage, and also could act as an extra de-stabilising factor on large entities (I generally found super states such the HRE and the Fatimids too stable and blobby). Their vassals are always trying to gain extra territories outside their authority, and restraining this behaviour should increase the chance of revolt.

As an added thing, vassalage is a personal thing, and the type of vassalage should only be on the individual noble, not the barony/county/duchy. This means that gains in internal control will be undone at the death of vassal or lord (although a new vassal of a powerful lord will likely struggle to resist tighter control).

 

[wingren013]

This is truly an excellent argument for this feature.

It's been a long-requested one. I hope it can make it in.

 

[MrNewVegas]

Paradox has no intention of implementing a dual-liege system in CK3, because they are no longer interested in adapting historical events to interesting gameplay. They build the game first, and then boldly declare that it's set in 1066, dual lieges don't exist, the smallest political unit is no longer the smallest geographic unit and vassal levies just appear out of thin air (along with the boats to transport them!)

 

[MrNewVegas]

Like if you can't implement the Duke of Bar being both a member of the empire and a Duke in Provence, what's the point?
This isn't even hard to do, you just tie the feudal system to titles rather than people.

 

[Hugh Mann]

Would I like this? Yes.

Unfortunately, based on paradox's decision to tie baronies directly to counties and their simplification of combat, super knights, and ahistorical peasant levies, there's basically zero chance of it being implemented. Paradox wants to focus on memes and fantasy, not historical immersion and complication.

Are you saying Pope Glitterhoof isn't historically immersive?

 

[Fitzjacob]

I've never encountered a more persuasive argument for the implementation of plural homage. In my opinion, it's pretty much the only reason for moving on to Crusader Kings III, as there is really no way that Crusader Kings II could handle it. My only regret is that I can only hit agree once.

If your two superiors should come into direct conflict with each other, then you have certain options available to you. You may remain neutral in the conflict, in exchange for providing monetary support to each side in lieu of the military service that you owe. Alternatively, you may choose a side, renouncing your homage to the other: the logical outcome of this situation is that if you pick the losing side, then the territories you hold in a now-hostile land will likely be revoked, while in the event that your side is victorious, then they may be annexed wholesale to your realm. Or, if the outcome of the war proves inconclusive, and a peace is negotiated, then regardless of your choice things may return to the status quo ante bellum.

Plural homage also creates an interesting scenario for potential claim wars. If you inherit a foreign title that is in vassalage to another king, then you now find yourself in a situation where another vassal in that realm may initiate a claim war against you for the territory you inherited, putting you in the position of fighting a war on what was previously foreign territory without having triggered a war of annexation on the part of your lieges: a new form of international-subnational warfare. Similarly, as a vassal you may fight for your claim to a foreign kingdom of equal status your liege without worry that your current holdings will be a point of conflict between you once you attain victory and independence.

I've quoted the gameplay implications that I find particularly beautiful. The arising conflicts sound enormously fun and there are great opportunities for escalation. And what you refer to as international-subnational warfare has been sorely missing in CK2, where you can only join wars if you have the same direct liege. Even within a realm your alliances can be suddenly be rendered worthless due to your allies being transferred from answering directly to the emperor to some intermediary duke. There are, of course, other considerations that have to be taken into account. If title revocation are handled in a similar manner as they are in CK2, then the King of France could potentially annex (revoke) England if the King ever ends up in prison (perhaps a hostage inherits). Anyway it's certainly not unsolvable.

In conclusion, I would propose that plural homage was a sufficiently significant and reasonably common phenomenon in the medieval period as to warrant its inclusion in Crusader Kings III, that its mechanics should be sufficiently straightforward as to prevent it from being indecipherable from the player's perspective, and that it offers both a more immersive gameplay experience and a wealth of new ways for players to interact with the game world.

The added complexity and risk of incomprehensible systems have to my knowledge been the primary arguments against plural homage and you've done plenty to address these concerns. However, there are situations that can be quite hard to get a good overview of. Consider a situation where the Dukes of Limburg answered to the Emperor due the titled itself being confirmed by them as a successor of Lower Lorraine, while being under suzerainty to the count of Bar due to a marriage contract, only to instead pay homage to the king of Navarre in his capacity as count of Champagne for which he in turn owes homage to the king of France. Now if Bar and Navarre take to the fields and Limburg throws their weight behind Bar and still loses, then will Champagne incorporate Limburg? And if so, will Limburg effectively be a part of France, despite the conflict having involved neither the French king nor the Holy Roman emperor?

I'm not requesting answers for the questions above, merely pointing out that complexity can easily spiral out of control.

 

[Torngasuk]

Unfortunately, based on paradox's decision to tie baronies directly to counties and their simplification of combat, super knights, and ahistorical peasant levies, there's basically zero chance of it being implemented. Paradox wants to focus on memes and fantasy, not historical immersion and complication.

It's entirely possible that you're correct, and that everything I've said here and will say in the future is fruitless. I would, however, much rather play Crusader Kings III knowing that I did everything in my power to make it a worthy sequel than to sit on the sidelines. I have enough hours in this game at this point that my interest in the outcome can no longer be considered merely academic. Imperator has already demonstrated that this is not an entirely one-sided arrangement: we're still early in the development for this game, and I like to think there's still hope for improvement.

This is truly an excellent argument for this feature.

I've never encountered a more persuasive argument for the implementation of plural homage. In my opinion, it's pretty much the only reason for moving on to Crusader Kings III, as there is really no way that Crusader Kings II could handle it. My only regret is that I can only hit agree once.

I thank you, both. If nothing else, I can at least be satisfied that I've made the argument as best I'm able. There are a few other potential features that I think warrant the move (I have just as many thoughts on marriage and inheritance, among other things - but those are topics for another time), but I'm otherwise in agreement that this is one of the most significant factors favoring the migration from CK2 to CK3.

There are, of course, other considerations that have to be taken into account. If title revocation are handled in a similar manner as they are in CK2, then the King of France could potentially annex (revoke) England if the King ever ends up in prison (perhaps a hostage inherits). Anyway it's certainly not unsolvable.

I know you aren't asking for specific answers, but I'm of the opinion that further discussion can only benefit most topics. As I envision it, this shouldn't actually be an issue: the English king would be in vassalage to the French monarch only for those territories he holds within the borders of the kingdom of France. If he imprisoned the English king, the French king would only be able to revoke those titles that are in vassalage to him directly. From his perspective, mechanically you'd only be the duke of Aquitaine, not the king of England. That's what would keep the mechanics within the realm of plausibility: you are only treated as a vassal with direct regard to those titles you hold in vassalage. And this is digressing a bit, into something I intend to treat in greater detail later on, but title revocation is something I'd very much like to see limited to cases of outright treason or other flagrant violations of the feudal contract - no more "plot to revoke the county of xyz."

The added complexity and risk of incomprehensible systems have to my knowledge been the primary arguments against plural homage and you've done plenty to address these concerns. However, there are situations that can be quite hard to get a good overview of. Consider a situation where the Dukes of Limburg answered to the Emperor due the titled itself being confirmed by them as a successor of Lower Lorraine, while being under suzerainty to the count of Bar due to a marriage contract, only to instead pay homage to the king of Navarre in his capacity as count of Champagne for which he in turn owes homage to the king of France. Now if Bar and Navarre take to the fields and Limburg throws their weight behind Bar and still loses, then will Champagne incorporate Limburg? And if so, will Limburg effectively be a part of France, despite the conflict having involved neither the French king nor the Holy Roman emperor?

I admit, I'm not entirely sure I quite follow: I understand the concept, but you lost me in the specific somewhere along that chain of events. I think I have a grasp on the direction of your thoughts, however. As per the English-French example, most peculiarities like this would be precluded by plural homage treating each title distinctly: Limburg itself in this scenario would never be at risk, because the duke has not renounced the vassal-liege relationship that exists for the duchy. Limburg would only risk those foreign titles that it holds as a vassal of the count of Champagne (a barony or two - if we assume that the powers that be change their minds on that count), which may be reasonably revoked by the count of Champagne (legal alter ego of the king of Navarre) if Navarre triumphs against Bar. You could only ever lose any title by this chain of events to its direct liege.

 

[neutrondecay]

It sounds like the way to model this in game mechanics would be for there to be three forms of vassal relationship:
Liege vassalage: Between a superior title and an interior one, such that the holder of the inferior title cannot have liege vassalage to anyone else. The default behaviour for vassals whose titles are all under a single liege. Example: Saxony as a vassal of the HRE.
Simple vassalage: Between a superior title and an interior one, such that the holder of the inferior title can have simple vassalage to a different liege for each title. Example: The two Burgundies.
Patronage: Between a controlling title and a controlled title. The controlled title can be the same tier as the controlling one, but not higher. The holder of the controlling title cannot tax the holder of the controlled one, or call them to arms, but may nominate their heir if they do not have a dynastic heir, and grant a CB for the title to a third party in some circumstances. Example: The Papacy as patron of Sicily, or England's treatment of Scotland during the interregnums.

And you'd define it in the code the same way you do now:

liege = k_anywhere

Which would define a simple vassalage, but if a single character's titles are all either (a) vassals to other titles held by the same character or (b) vassals to a single other character, the first character is automatically in liege vassalage to the second, having no other liege.

liege = {
title = k_anywhere
type = simple
}

would do the same.

liege = {
title = k_anywhere
type = full
}

would define liege vassalage. If a character is mistakenly assigned more than one full liege, precedence will be given to the one who is the liege of the character's primary title.

liege = {
title = k_anywhere
type = patron
}

And

patron = k_anywhere

Would both define patronage. (Note that titles with patronage are de facto independent.)

nd

 

[Torngasuk]

It sounds like the way to model this in game mechanics would be for there to be three forms of vassal relationship:
Liege vassalage: Between a superior title and an interior one, such that the holder of the inferior title cannot have liege vassalage to anyone else. The default behaviour for vassals whose titles are all under a single liege. Example: Saxony as a vassal of the HRE.
Simple vassalage: Between a superior title and an interior one, such that the holder of the inferior title can have simple vassalage to a different liege for each title. Example: The two Burgundies.
Patronage: Between a controlling title and a controlled title. The controlled title can be the same tier as the controlling one, but not higher. The holder of the controlling title cannot tax the holder of the controlled one, or call them to arms, but may nominate their heir if they do not have a dynastic heir, and grant a CB for the title to a third party in some circumstances. Example: The Papacy as patron of Sicily, or England's treatment of Scotland during the interregnums.

I'd structure it slightly differently, personally. Swearing liege homage would still allow you to have simple homage for other titles, and simply require that your first loyalty in any conflict of interest be to that liege. Crown laws would determine things like foreign inheritance, while the distinction of simple vs. liege homage would be a personal, character-based relationship to help navigate potential conflicts of interest in international warfare, and to make liege-vassal relationships more interesting. Sicily and the Pope, and England and Scotland, are subtly different creatures entirely, and ultimately better modeled by other mechanics, I suspect.

 

[wolfgag]

First time posting, only had this account for lurking in forbidden forums. I felt so strongly about this topic I wanted to contribute a little.

The simplest way to understand the feudal era is by analogy to real estate. There are owners (usually homeowners) and there are tenants. There is also property insurance. In feudalism, you have something similar as there seems to be some continuity between modern real estate (at least in the Anglosphere) and feudalism. It also just seems somehow like a natural system that would always pop up. Here's the basics

You have "sovereign" lords who own their territories free and clear of any feudal duties, with their castles and manors with the farms and workshops and other things attached to them as part of the lord's estate.​

You have the tenants, sometimes called barons but what they're called doesn't matter. They don't own the territory but have the right to possess and enjoy it, and pay rent and give service for the pleasure. There are many varieties of tenure: life tenure, typical feudal inheritance, or even governorship in the case of an empire (possible solution for Byzantines?). The tenants were able to "sub-let" a portion of their estate, especially if it was really big like what the barons had in England (the idea of a baron being a nothing and a nobody is so ridiculous for the case of England, they were functionally equivalent to the in-game earls).

You also have "insurance agencies", powerful sovereign lords with the means of defence (castles, armies, wealth, diplo acumen) who offer their services as protectors in exchange for loyalty, tribute, soldiers, and political support, among other things. Every sovereign had to be the protector of his tenants because it was his own property, but sovereigns could also protect fellow sovereigns and this was one of the origins of medieval kingship. This protection contract did not (and could not) imply the surrender of ownership in the protected territory, and it was the question of whether or not a particular noble had full ownership and the right to withdraw his support from the king and swear fealty to a new one that was at the bottom of many conflicts between kings and nobles.​

Finally you also have "homeowner associations", assemblies of sovereign equals who meet to plan their common defence among other things. Sometimes they elected a "president" who would be succeeded by his family members, another origin for (early) medieval kingship. Sometimes they elected a president who was chosen from among the various leading families of the league, the origin of classical republics.​

Just as one person can own a home (be an independent owner) while also leasing an office in a building owned by someone else (be a tenant), so too can lords be independent in some holdings and be a vassal in others (and have their own vassals). One can also be a tenant in one's home and a tenant in the office, each having different owners. Furthermore as one can buy insurance from one company for the house, and be protected by a second company's insurance purchased by the office building's owner, so too can a lord be a vassal to two different sovereigns for different holdings, or have a protector in one territory and a different protector in a second territory. One might even be persuaded to have two protectors for one and the same property, if one felt that the added obligations were worth it.

The terms of protection, like the terms of tenancy, can vary. Sometimes it is a non-exclusive mutual defence pact, and sometimes it is a strictly exclusive contract. The norm was always that these relationships were voluntary and personal. The ability for lords to flee the tyranny of their so-called protectors and seek the protection provided by others was not only frequently exercised (or at least attempted) but also accepted as just. This was an essential self-defence mechanism against tyranny, one which was often threatened by ambitious kings, princes, and emperors who exploited every diplomatic, familial, military, religious, and economic advantage they had to subvert or suppress that principle. It was also a principle exploited by nobles and commoners who sought to usurp their landlord's ownership of the land they formerly held only as tenants. Many of the conflicts of the feudal era had at their heart this struggle between owners and usurpers, whether they wanted to secede or centralise.

With this rough picture of feudalism in mind, it's clear that CK2 captures some of the basic principles of feudalism, but not all. In CK2, even though the vassal-liege relationship is explicitly coded against titles (in the save game file the liege is not listed in the character's section but in his title), in cases of different lieges for the same character the engine automatically assigns all the character's titles to only one of those lieges. In other words the mechanism for producing an historical result in the assigning of lieges exists but is overridden by the deeper code. I assume this is done to make things simple for events where a liege or top_liege is called upon for a particular character, and to make the map more clear. There may be other more important reasons but I haven't thought of them.

So, recommendations. I won't go into great detail, this post is long enough:

First, the game concept of "liege" should somehow be split in two: the [landlord/sovereign/owner], and the [protector], since those are different things that can co-exist with a specific title or holding. Both should be calculated against specific titles or holdings and not against characters. It might be more difficult to work out the logic for scoping for events and so forth, but I think it would be worth it to get closer to real feudalism.

Second, holdings and titles should be functionally separated, with holdings representing the physical geographical units that one can possess and titles being bundles of claims to those holdings. There would be two kinds of titles: [sovereign] and [vassal]. The sovereign represents ultimate ownership of holdings while vassal titles are grants to holdings with specified, grantor-chosen rights and obligations. Life tenure, hereditary tenure, or administrative tenure (military governors with heirs selected by the sovereign?) could be selected when available. Holders of vassal titles can further grant out those holdings to other vassals who get new vassal titles generated for them. This structure would have an impact on map modes. War and intrigue could be carried out to secure new terms of vassalage favourable to oneself, whether as the sovereign or the vassal.

Third, the political and vassal map modes should be replaced by the following: a [de facto ownership] mode dividing the map into territories according to the control of sovereigns in their sovereign titles only, with the vanilla feature of spreading suzerain names over tributaries for the "protector" relationships; a [vassal] map mode dividing the map into territories according to who is the direct vassal under the sovereigns; and a [holder] map mode dividing the map into territories according to whoever has actual direct possession of the geographical units. I would also include a [league] map mode, you'll see why.

Fourth, the tributary system should be expanded through integration into the above title structure. Titles, in addition to listing claimed holdings, should have "claims" like protection treaties listed against titles (and extension, their holdings), whether sovereign or vassal, with the consent of the owner hopefully. By using this system it would be possible to seamlessly usurp titles by claiming a sovereign-vassal relationship rather than a protector-client relationship, adding the targets claimed holdings to your own title and attempting to integrate them as a vassal title. The reverse could be accomplished too, forcing the transformation from a sovereign-vassal relationship to a protector-client relationship.

Fifth a new "league" system should be introduced to simulate those early kingdoms and republics which were not originally based solely on feudal overlordship and protection relationships but on assemblies of landowning equals, which can later be transformed into a feudal-style system, or into a classic empire. If I were implementing this sort of thing I would just develop it out of the mentioned protection system, specifically with the adding of "protection claims". With a league you would get a special league-head title complete with "league claims" which give you the duty to protect and right to take certain actions against the titles of league members. The "laws" of the league-head title are just the rules governing the conduct of all members including the head, which all members have a say in. The sovereign map mode would feature the league's name overlaid over its members.
​

I doubt these ideas would ever be implemented, it's meant to be released next year, right? I'll enjoy the game regardless I think. But it's nice to think about what could've been, I suppose.

 

[Ivashanko]

The OP's suggestions are fabulous, and I think Paradox is making a massive mistake by not implementing them. Subnational warfare is desperately needed, but is nearly impossible to implement as long as as the status quo remains.

 

[myrt]

 

[klopkr]

I just don't feel like you can give the time period justice without more nuance in the tiers and suzerainty.

 

[Secuter]

This is a genius idea! I like it a lot. It will make for a much deeper experience, where you can pay homage to two different lieges. Indeed, this way you play it out to your benefit, and you will have skillfully walk a thin line between who you support and when. It's also true that some bordergore happened when somebody from another nation inherited a piece of land right in the middle of the other kingdom - though that didn't create a separate duchy, not at all. They still paid homage to their nominal liege. Crown authority will also mean more than a set of very static laws in your vision where vassals can face serious dilemmas and allegiances can change depending the current power politics.

I truly hope that it will be in the game - more politics. But I don't think you should get your hopes too high.

 

[luxfelix]

I thought this might be at least a little closer to being implemented with their announcement of leasing titles, so that though the barony may never leave a county, some foreign lord could be receiving its incomes &/or levies?

Or is it only used for clergy characters? Time (& future dev diaries) will tell.

 

[Karlmann]

You have the tenants, sometimes called barons but what they're called doesn't matter. They don't own the territory but have the right to possess and enjoy it, and pay rent and give service for the pleasure. There are many varieties of tenure: life tenure, typical feudal inheritance, or even governorship in the case of an empire (possible solution for Byzantines?). The tenants were able to "sub-let" a portion of their estate, especially if it was really big like what the barons had in England (the idea of a baron being a nothing and a nobody is so ridiculous for the case of England, they were functionally equivalent to the in-game earls).

I think this one is a different, but major, problem that should be adressed in CK3. We need a more neutral access to "hierarchy". In CK2 hierarchy is tied heavily to an unchangeable title-based system of which paradoxes game will make us believe is uniformly widespread all over the world, with only variations in naming.

Thus i think hierarchy and naming should be split up into a more open, modular and neutral tier based gamistic hierarchy and a cultural and rp-flavoured title setup. I would actually call it Sovereignity (you can read its derivation in this thread).

1. Tier: Sovereign (of the realm)
   
2. Tier: (High) Lords
   
3. Tier: Vassals (of the Lords)
4. Tier: Subvassals (of the Vassals)
5. Tier: Courtiers
6. Tier: Freemen/Commoners

This list is the complete template for "game opperations" but could be active only in parts for each sovereign realm/title. So in old England the active part of the template could be fleshed out very simple: 1. King, 2. Baron and Earls, 3. Courtiers, 4. Commoners (i admit that i am no expert in english titles), while e.g. in the HRE it could be fleshed out more complex: 1. HREmperor, 2. Princes (from King [e.g. of Bohemia] to Imperial Counts [e.g. of Castello]), 3. Free Lords (Counts and "Barons"), 4. Ministerials/Officers, 5. Courtiers, 6. Commoners.

And in every realm you could be ranked to a different position. So the King of England is Tier 1 in the Kingdom of England but Tier 2 in the Kingdom of France and no Tier in any other realm.

 

[zbyrne]

I've wanted this in CK since the first time I played CK2. Such a key thing in medieval things (as per OPs great post)

While people have corrected suggested PDX don't want to go down that route, but dammit they should!

 

[blackjack419]

This could also have interesting repercussions inside a single kingdom, perhaps with counts - say a duchy is destroyed, and then reformed, does a count who has become vassal to the king (or another duke) have the option of being under the original duke.

Gavelkind splitting titles apart can also be even more interesting, if one duke's demesne straddles the two now divided kingdoms.