Add the requirement for Pope's thumbs up on a new HRE and you have my vote.
4th tier.
- Thread starter Jak9090
- 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.
For those suggesting a completely historically implausible 'British Empire', remember that monarchs of England were always more continental-facing than anything else. Even Edward I, who crushed Wales and very nearly effected the union of the Scottish crown to the English one, was more interested in preserving Gascony from the grasping hands of Philip the Fair than anything else (cf. Malcolm Vale, The Angevin Legacy, (1996)). From the accession of Henry of Anjou in 1154 to the wars of the 1200s and 1210s the nominal vassals of the English crown were more numerous and powerful on mainland Europe than in the British Isles; historians refer flippantly to the 'Angevin Empire' to describe this territorial configuration. While it was not really an empire in the eyes of contemporaries (only the claim to the translatio imperii from Rome could bestow that kind of legitimacy), it certainly has more historical basis than a nonsensical 'British Empire'.
Of course, with the inheritance in 1328 by Edward III of a claim to the crown of France you truly have the potential for an exceedingly powerful and prestigious multi-polar kingdom united under the authority of the House of Plantagenet (or, after 1399, Plantagenet-Lancaster), so here too is a plausible alternate-history imperial candidate (but again, there needs to be some claim to a translatio imperii, otherwise there can be no imperium in the medieval sense).
Of course, with the inheritance in 1328 by Edward III of a claim to the crown of France you truly have the potential for an exceedingly powerful and prestigious multi-polar kingdom united under the authority of the House of Plantagenet (or, after 1399, Plantagenet-Lancaster), so here too is a plausible alternate-history imperial candidate (but again, there needs to be some claim to a translatio imperii, otherwise there can be no imperium in the medieval sense).
.png){kind=avatar}
In your opinion, then would there be a new imperial title or the transferal of the title at the expense of the emperor in Germany?
There could be some vague claim on the basis of West Francia, though that would be a bit of a stretch by 1328 I would think.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Khan of the Golden Horde and the Ilkhan were the two other emperors. Having the menacing Mongols holding titles of the highest level would make sense.
I don't think even a united english and french kingdom would have meant a second Empire in western Europe. Simply because the german-italian based Empire still existed undamaged (would be interesting to compare the status of their kings in this period, but I'm pretty sure this was a stable time for the HRE, Golden Bull, the 7 electors etc.). Maybe had this led to some campaign towards Rome (the Avignon papacy partially falls into the HYW iirc, so a good pretext, restore the pope to his rightful place with a march to Rome und the applause of the Italian populations while the King in Germany could just look by powerless on the other side of teh Alps)...
But that's all speculation and even the case where the english king would sucessfully gain the crown is improbable (though Henry V (iirc) almost managed it). It's actually quite astonishing how resilient the "opposition" in France was during that conflict when one considers the number of defeats...
I guess an important question is how stable the imperial title geographically should be and who should be the electors? In the IX and X century, the title passed to whoever the pope liked, before the Saxon (or Ottonian) dynasty rose in Germany, followed by the Salians who controlled the title in 1066. I would prefer some mechanism for depriving the German kingdom of the imperial title and passing it to France, or Spain, or an independent Italian kingdom. I'm not making a bold statement that it should be this way, but what do you guys think?
Passing the imperial crown to Italy if unified (by unified I mean the historical Italy without two Sicillies), is possible but would require a
weak "German" King, A Papal "ok", and would mean constant bad realations to the former empire.
France is a bit harder to immagine. They'd definatelly need Aachen, the city of "Charlemagne" to have some kind of claim
on the succession of him and the roman emperors and at least the (former) Rhine-electors of the empire annexed.
"Spain is not the Emperor" is a loadinghint in DW and I guess it says it all. Italy and France are the only possibilities I can imagine
to steal the Emperors title if "Germany" still exists.
weak "German" King, A Papal "ok", and would mean constant bad realations to the former empire.
France is a bit harder to immagine. They'd definatelly need Aachen, the city of "Charlemagne" to have some kind of claim
on the succession of him and the roman emperors and at least the (former) Rhine-electors of the empire annexed.
"Spain is not the Emperor" is a loadinghint in DW and I guess it says it all. Italy and France are the only possibilities I can imagine
to steal the Emperors title if "Germany" still exists.
It doesn't just make sense, the Khagan of the Golden Horde and of the Il Khanate were Emperors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khagan
I hope there are 4th tier titles. I'd like any title which would be a "King of Kings" type title to be in this tier. Off the top of my head I guess that could include:
-Roman Emperor
-Holy Roman Emperor
-Pope of the Roman Catholic Chuch
-Khagan of the Mongol Hordes (Khan over Khans which we'll call a King of Kings title, yes? =p)
-Caliph of Islam
-And possibly the Shahanshah of Persia. (I don't know if any rulers of Persia actually bothered with this title during the time frame of the game though.)
Of course the question needs to be asked, is there a gameplay reason to have a 4th tier? I mean, 3rd tier is already completely sovereign. What's supposed to change on moving to the 4th tier? Perhaps 4th tier rulers can vassalize Kings? I don't know.
-Roman Emperor
-Holy Roman Emperor
-Pope of the Roman Catholic Chuch
-Khagan of the Mongol Hordes (Khan over Khans which we'll call a King of Kings title, yes? =p)
-Caliph of Islam
-And possibly the Shahanshah of Persia. (I don't know if any rulers of Persia actually bothered with this title during the time frame of the game though.)
Of course the question needs to be asked, is there a gameplay reason to have a 4th tier? I mean, 3rd tier is already completely sovereign. What's supposed to change on moving to the 4th tier? Perhaps 4th tier rulers can vassalize Kings? I don't know.
Last edited:
There is a history of Kings giving nominal submission to Emperors. Gameplay wise, we could have a fourth tier system that does stay true to Kingdoms being very much independent.
Duchies (second tier) states can have vassals, but they are almost completely controlled by their King. They are independent only in the administration of their area, and while they can expand, they can be meddled with to the point of them being effectively "big counts" unless they decide to defect or get inherited by a foreign nation.
The Third Tier, Kingdoms, should be completely independent of all powers. But they should have the option to seek the protection of an Emperor should their Kingdom be losing badly in a series of wars. If you are a King of four territories, not an odd event, then they should be allowed to be under an Emperor. The difference between a protected King and a Duke is that a King's forces cannot be mobilized directly. It's titles cannot be revoked. And it can carry out it's own wars without interference from their Emperor. The thing is that they would be in an alliance with the Emperor. The Emperor would be bound to defend the Kingdom. The Kingdom can also defend the Emperor, but it shouldn't be required like the defensive part. In a sense it's like having a big brother. Also, an Emperor may decide to give one of it's many Kingly titles to a loyal vassal or a brother or son to help spread the dynasty making the Kingdom effectively independent, but still part of the nation. Like an autonomous region.
That was just a rough idea, but it seemed like it could work easily enough. And besides, it's not like there is going to be many Empires showing up. Only the Pope, HRE, and Byzantine Emperor will be around with any regularity.
Duchies (second tier) states can have vassals, but they are almost completely controlled by their King. They are independent only in the administration of their area, and while they can expand, they can be meddled with to the point of them being effectively "big counts" unless they decide to defect or get inherited by a foreign nation.
The Third Tier, Kingdoms, should be completely independent of all powers. But they should have the option to seek the protection of an Emperor should their Kingdom be losing badly in a series of wars. If you are a King of four territories, not an odd event, then they should be allowed to be under an Emperor. The difference between a protected King and a Duke is that a King's forces cannot be mobilized directly. It's titles cannot be revoked. And it can carry out it's own wars without interference from their Emperor. The thing is that they would be in an alliance with the Emperor. The Emperor would be bound to defend the Kingdom. The Kingdom can also defend the Emperor, but it shouldn't be required like the defensive part. In a sense it's like having a big brother. Also, an Emperor may decide to give one of it's many Kingly titles to a loyal vassal or a brother or son to help spread the dynasty making the Kingdom effectively independent, but still part of the nation. Like an autonomous region.
That was just a rough idea, but it seemed like it could work easily enough. And besides, it's not like there is going to be many Empires showing up. Only the Pope, HRE, and Byzantine Emperor will be around with any regularity.
The developers have already said that the Pope is a kingdom-level title.
I like your idea, about kingdoms under suzerainty of the empire, however maybe kings should have somewhat more obligations to the empire. The historic example is the kingdom of Bohemia in the Holy Roman Empire, which position in the HRE is described in the Golden Bull of Sicily (where the hereditary royal title of the ruler of Bohemia was confirmed).
However a succession crisis in the subject/mediatized kingdom should give the suzerain Emperor an opportunity to intervene. For instance when the Premyslid dynasty died out in the male line, king of the Romans Albert I of Habsburg seized Bohemia (and Moravia) as reverted fiefs of the empire, he made his son Rudolph king of Bohemia, but he died during a siege (dysentery). Later his successor as king of the Romans Henry of Luxemburg (later Holy Roman Emperor) got his son John for whom Henry had arranged a marriage with a Premyslid heiress, elected as the new king of Bohemia.
Another example were conflicts between the Bohemia and the HRE, a defeated king of Bohemia got his territories (Bohemia and Moravia) back as fiefs of the Holy Roman Empire; for instance when Ottokar II of Bohemia was defeated by the empire (ruled by king of the Romans Rudolph of Habsburg)..
However OTOH the situation inside the Holy Roman Empire should perhaps be different from other examples; perhaps the emperor should have opportunities to intervene in a kingdom outside the HRE, which has the emperor/empire as suzerain.
Last edited:
Well then, use Padishahs and Caliphs for Islamic examples of Sultans falling under the sway of another nation. Similarly there are many Khans and Kings that became vassals of the Khaganate of the Golden Horde and of the Empire of the Il Khanate. We don't have a clear example of this for Europe because... well... the HRE was the only Emperor during this timespan and his position of being the only Emperor was protected by the Papacy, and due to the Empire not being weak and decrepit during the timeframe. Further we have the Byzantine Empire that had some Kingdoms under it's protection, though in reality they could be called dukes or even counts. THere is, however, a possibility of having a "Russia" inside the game as well.
After all, Kievan Rus was pretty big, and while Grand Prince was tantamount to King, it's very possible that it could have became an Empire if it wanted to.
It is. That list you quoted was a list of how "I" would like to see things turn out as my post said. That's all.
They could always call themselves "Emperors", that's for sure. But the fact is that they would not had been recognised as such.
In the Christiandom, the concept of Empire is linked to the ancient Roman Empire that once politically unified the Christian world.
And there was only two Roman Empire : the Western Roman Empire of Honorius (=Carolingian Empire/=Holy Roman Empire) and the Eastern Roman Empire of Arcadius (=Byzantine Empire/≃Latin Empire/≃Empire of Nicaea/≃Empire of Trebizond/≃Russian Empire/≃Ottoman Empire).
Muscovy (or another place) had to become the third Rome before a grand duke (or a king of the Rus') could claim the empire dignity. (with the help of royal marriage link a niece of Constantine XI and the collapse of the previous Eastern Roman Empire for example).
Last edited:
As far as the Empires that COULD exist if you conquered the right areas. The Ottoman Empire had an emperor over Kings and was more then a handful for the HRE since they actually went to war with each other several times. Then you could always dream of building the ultimate empire of Europe and reunite the Roman empire, which would find the HRE almost laughable. I think the Kievan Rus would be an excellent choice for the East and depending on how far east the new map will span you could have the Great Khan for the Horde. Also, who knows, maybe you could try to build the European Union centuries before it had been conceived.
I definitely agree that if you conquer the British Isles, France, and Spain, you are looking at a monster of an empire. I honestly think that if you are able to capture any three major king crowns (England, France, Poland, Spain, Lithuania, Italy, ect.) Then you should be able to declare an empire. Now if you conquer like England, Scotland, and Ireland that's not really an emperor worthy feat. Places like Ireland, Scotland, Denmark, Finland aren't what I'd call major crowns.
I definitely agree that if you conquer the British Isles, France, and Spain, you are looking at a monster of an empire. I honestly think that if you are able to capture any three major king crowns (England, France, Poland, Spain, Lithuania, Italy, ect.) Then you should be able to declare an empire. Now if you conquer like England, Scotland, and Ireland that's not really an emperor worthy feat. Places like Ireland, Scotland, Denmark, Finland aren't what I'd call major crowns.
The Ottoman Empire pretty much ursurped the title of Roman Emperor from the Byzantines.
I think that if you have enough king titles as you describe, you should be able to challenge the Holy Roman Emperor for his title and declare yourself the Universal Ruler and heir of Rome.