4th tier.

[Sujit]

I think that the emperor title out side the HRE must be possible. But you have to be recognized. If the English king conquer: Wales, Scotland, France and Spain and then proclaim himself Emperor then he need to be recognized by the other kings and the pope. Of course the HRE emperor will not be happy but he might recognize the need Emperor.

 

[yourworstnightm]

I think that the emperor title out side the HRE must be possible. But you have to be recognized. If the English king conquer: Wales, Scotland, France and Spain and then proclaim himself Emperor then he need to be recognized by the other kings and the pope. Of course the HRE emperor will not be happy but he might recognize the need Emperor.

There can't be two Universal Rulers. If someone control the British Isles, France and Spain he would have a good case for being the Emperor. The HRE would not accept another empire to be proclaimed, and declaring an Empire was declaring one self as hier of Rome. There can only be one person claiming the right of Universal Rule, thus there can only be one emperor (of coursre the Orthodox Roman Emperor would claim he is the legitimate heir of Rome and the Catholics are upstart). The title of the Holy Roman Empire should not be bound to territory like the kingdom titles, but be the goal everyone want, be able to hold the title of Universal Ruler.

 

[Duzaroo]

....I think there might be some confusion as to what an emperor is. While in Europe the Emperor of the HRE is claiming to be the successor to Rome, an empire is not based on the ideal that you are claiming to be a Universal Ruler. An Empire is an country that encapsulates more then one self serving government body. So technically the United States is an Empire because each state is separate from the Federal government and each other (though that is a stretch), so if the USA had a king instead of a president he could declare himself emperor...Providing that he didn't abolish the state governments.

 

[Burgonde]

....I think there might be some confusion as to what an emperor is. While in Europe the Emperor of the HRE is claiming to be the successor to Rome, an empire is not based on the ideal that you are claiming to be a Universal Ruler. An Empire is an country that encapsulates more then one self serving government body. So technically the United States is an Empire because each state is separate from the Federal government and each other (though that is a stretch), so if the USA had a king instead of a president he could declare himself emperor...Providing that he didn't abolish the state governments.

During middle ages the idea of a universal ruler was still strong - see all the efforts from Frederick "Barbarossa" to promote the imperial majesty. In reality, it was obviously more like a primus inter pares, but the idea remained.

 

[Duzaroo]

Well most definetly, but it isn't necessary to go immediately to war with HRE just because you are Emperor. Like was stated before, the Pope talks to God, he should clearly be the ruler of the universe, but the HRE never tried to destroy them....well legitemately. Plus if you rule England, France, and Spain. I don't think the other half of Europe is going to just charge into it gung-ho because you hurt their Emperors feelings by naming your pet country the same thing he named his pet country. Wars weren't THAT easy to start back then.

 

[Sujit]

There can't be two Universal Rulers. If someone control the British Isles, France and Spain he would have a good case for being the Emperor. The HRE would not accept another empire to be proclaimed, and declaring an Empire was declaring one self as hier of Rome. There can only be one person claiming the right of Universal Rule, thus there can only be one emperor (of coursre the Orthodox Roman Emperor would claim he is the legitimate heir of Rome and the Catholics are upstart). The title of the Holy Roman Empire should not be bound to territory like the kingdom titles, but be the goal everyone want, be able to hold the title of Universal Ruler.

What meant was that he create his own Empire dueling with HRE.

 

[Zzzzz...]

Why not put a trait "High King" that gives huge bonuses if you collect enough kingdoms. You can get it by decision of event.

Calling yourself empire during that time, if I'm not mistaken, is pretty much saying "I'm the successor of Caesar".

 

[Duzaroo]

Why not put a trait "High King" that gives huge bonuses if you collect enough kingdoms. You can get it by decision of event.

Calling yourself empire during that time, if I'm not mistaken, is pretty much saying "I'm the successor of Caesar".

I do like that idea, cause then you can have kings under you and for all intesive perpases are an empire. In Europe Major, yes, being an Emperor was being successor to Rome but this game does expand into Scandinava, Russia, Africa, and Asia minor were Roman rule was either never felt or extremely short lived.

What meant was that he create his own Empire dueling with HRE.

Well, if you do declare an Empire then you should probably be instantly on HRE's naughty list, but I don't think it should mean instant war.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Calling yourself empire during that time, if I'm not mistaken, is pretty much saying "I'm the successor of Caesar".

Correct.

 

[Sute]{h]

....I think there might be some confusion as to what an emperor is. While in Europe the Emperor of the HRE is claiming to be the successor to Rome, an empire is not based on the ideal that you are claiming to be a Universal Ruler. An Empire is an country that encapsulates more then one self serving government body. So technically the United States is an Empire because each state is separate from the Federal government and each other (though that is a stretch), so if the USA had a king instead of a president he could declare himself emperor...Providing that he didn't abolish the state governments.

Well that turns everything into a discussion of semantics. A federal state isn't an empire in my point of view. The empire does traditionally claim universal rulership over the relevant world. Sure the empire might not rule everything, but they rule that which is worth ruling, if they have the power to claim it. Note that empire are rarely strictly territorial entities. The HRE for instance claimed worldly sovereignty over all christians. Powers at the periphery of his rule frequently ignored this claim but such is the nature of empires. Imperial authority is relative rather than absolute, and their enforcement is often based on ritual displays of violence and grandure rather the a measured response. Empires doesn't have the capacity to enforce their rule equally within their borders, so they need ritual displays of power to deter potentiale revolters. Small offenses to their authority is ignored, while significant offenses is used to statuate examples.

As for the Pope the dual claim to universal rulership was actually a big problem. This was solved by a strict divide between worldly and spiritual authority. All worldly power rested with the emperor, while the pope had all spiritual power. In theory at least...

 

[Sujit]

Well, if you do declare an Empire then you should probably be instantly on HRE's naughty list, but I don't think it should mean instant war.

That just what I meant.

 

[Duzaroo]

Okay, then we are in agreement.

 

[Captain Frakas]

the Eastern Roman Empire of Arcadius (=Byzantine Empire/≃Latin Empire/≃Empire of Nicaea/≃Empire of Trebizond/≃Russian Empire/≃Ottoman Empire).

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.

The Ottoman Empire pretty much ursurped the title of Roman Emperor from the Byzantines.

As say yourworstnightm, the Ottoman ruler is a successor of both the East Roman Empire (with stronger claims than Russia, but it's contested) and of the [sunnite] Caliphate previously held by the Abbasids.

Then you could always dream of building the ultimate empire of Europe and reunite the Roman empire, which would find the HRE almost laughable.

Reuniting the Roman Empire simply mean having both the Western Roman Empire (HRE) and the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire).

Well, if you do declare an Empire then you should probably be instantly on HRE's naughty list, but I don't think it should mean instant war.

It doesn't mean instant war, but it doesn't mean neither that others will recognise you as such. In fact, if you do declare an empire, it's just that you created a claim on the Western or the Eastern Roman empire. You'll then have to enforce it if you want to be recognised as the Emperor. And by enforcing it, you'll be the only western emperor or the only eastern emperor.




to conclude :

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.

It would certainly be fun for lots of gamers yes, but as it's really absolute fantasy, it have perhaps more place in a mod than in the vanilla game.
I do not doubt that it will be very easy to mod new titles into the game and I do not doubt that such mods will be released shortly after CK2.

 

[unmerged(140901)]

I was quite happy with the "Emperor" trait in CK1 once one held 5 king titles. If this trait was incorporated into CK2 with some stat or economic bonuses it would solve the issue of random "empire" claims in Spain or the British Isles as people have suggested above.

I do think seperate from the possible new upstart empires that there should be unique Empires. These being the Holy Roman Empire in the West and the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor in the East. I think for balancing purposes the game should include unique 4th tier titles for other cultures as well.

In Persia the title used by many rulers throughout histoy is Shahneshah, which literaly means "king of kings". As a fun fact, the character in CK1 from the Seljuks: Malik Shah has quite the regal name. Malik is Arabic for king or ruler and shah is Persian for king.... so he walked around with the name "King King". I wonder what he wanted people to remember him as.

The Arab kingdoms should have a Caliph title since during the time period and beyond there was still a Caliph claiming religious and temporal authority to varying degrees. There is no reason why in the CK world the Abbasid Caliph shouldn't be able to break free of the Seljuk puppet strings so to speak. Heck there was an Abbasid Caliph at the time as well as a Fatimid Caliph based in Egypt fighting for the hearts and minds of the Muslim community during the game.

Lastly the Mongols should have a Great Khan since a Great Khan was in fact elected from the princes after the provious one's death, kind of like the Holy Roman Emperor was. This way the Great Khan could vassalize European kingdoms as well; the Mongols did accept vassals as long as they did not rebel or resist Mongol authority (with some exceptions).

My two cents,
kilarious

 

[Zzzzz...]

I don't like the idea of having fantasy empires (that's just me), that's why I suggested the "High King" trait. Although I like the idea of wrestling the HRE crown with the Pope's blessing.

Outside Christianity, the Caliph and the Great Khan make sense. I guess those two are the 3rd and 4th empire-level titles.

 

[yourworstnightm]

The problem with Caliphs is that there were several people who went about calling themselves Caliph at the same time. Also the legitimate Abbasid Caliph was pretty much a Seljuq vassal in 1066.

That's why we need some other mechanic for Caliphs.

 

[Sujit]

There existed empires parallel with HRE, like the "Hungarian Empire" or the "Swedish Empire"

 

[Duzaroo]

There existed empires parallel with HRE, like the "Hungarian Empire" or the "Swedish Empire"

See that's what I was trying to get at earlier. While the emperor title was very rarely used there where lots of empires.

 

[yourworstnightm]

There existed empires parallel with HRE, like the "Hungarian Empire" or the "Swedish Empire"

They were recognized as kingdoms, not empires.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

It all depends whether Empire will mean simply "empire", or if it will mean the idea of "Imperium", linked to its original roman significance.

If the fourth tier will be only a game mechanic that enables "emperors" to vassalize kings, then I see no problem with britanic, scandinavian or spanish empires, caliphates, great khans and what else. If, however, the idea of Imperium is linked to the Roman Imperium, than its difficult to envision empires outside Bizantium and the Holy Roman Empire.