CK3 Ruler Title Project

[TheGib770]

Pretty much. 'Þjóð' in Old Norse seems to denote a nation, like the Norðmenn (Norwegians), Danir (Danes) or Svíar (Swedes).

'Þjóðkonungr', as it's used in Heimskringla, is describing Gormr and Eiríkr as kings over all Denmark and Sweden, respectively; whereas Haraldr Fairhair only rules Vestfold in south-east Norway at the time he proposes to Gyða. She's basically mocking Haraldr's petty kingdom in comparison to the unified, national kingdoms of Gormr and Eiríkr.

Also, in the Viking Age, most independent rulers would have been titled 'konungr', regardless if they are kingdom-tier, duchy-tier or county-tier size in Crusader Kings. So in 867 AD, all of the independent county-tier rulers in Norway would be 'konungr'. As soon as they become vassalised, they would become 'jarl' or 'hǫfðingi'.

The major change in terminology of Old Norse landed titles occurs in the late 13th century due to heavy influence from the Holy Roman Empire, with influences and borrowings from Middle Low German into Old Norse vocabulary. But for both the 867 AD and 1066 AD start dates, 'feudal' titles are still quite foreign in Scandinavia.

The only issue is that petty kings were handled automatically by ck2 by a cultural basis. So Þjóðkonungr would show up as the petty name.

It would be better to have konungr stay as king and have Þjóðkonungr be a conditional title for the 3 nations

 

[FranzVonG]

Were these differences in place by 9th century?

well, not fully. But the nobles would probably speak something closer to Occitan in the western part of Italy (especially in Piedmont and Liguria). Longobards mostly contributed with words about war, vengeance and killing

 

[Keder]

The problem is that these guys aren't quite supposed to be castle-holders. The term is a lot like "a prince's vassal".

Agreed, but castle holders in east slavic realms were quite rare (if we don't count kremlins as castles). I don't see easy way to fit Rus titles into 4-tier feudal ladder

Well, volost' is too little to correspond to the CKII-level understanding of Viceroy so using Volostel' for Viceroy would also be bad.

Also agree, volostel' is not fitting this era, unfotunately. For viceroys namestnik (наместник) would be better, I think.

Here I have to disagree. The only place where I could find both to be seen is Novgorod - and it seems to have had one тысяцкой but many voyevodas.

You are right. Tysyatskii is out of CK3 scale of things, it is something below commander of army and tied to the detachment size. Voevoda was also term for military and administrave city rulers appointed by knyaz or tsar. I think both commander and marshal should be voevodas but with some adjective to specify their particular role, e.g. Bol'shoi Voevoda for marshal and Polkovoi Voevoda for commander.

 

[Keder]

BTW, "druzhinnik" is ideal term for "knights" as they were people closest to knyaz and who fight alongside with him. So it fits perfectly into game mechanics category "knight". I wonder why it is "contested" it the table.

 

[kurthakon]

The only issue is that petty kings were handled automatically by ck2 by a cultural basis. So Þjóðkonungr would show up as the petty name.

It would be better to have konungr stay as king and have Þjóðkonungr be a conditional title for the 3 nations

Personally, I would use Þjóðkonungr as the title for Old Norse emperors for a few reasons.

1. Keisari was never a title used by Old Norse rulers, assumedly it was only used for the rulers of HRE and Byzantium.
2. Keisari is ultimately to the Norse a foreign Christian title which was introduced to Old Norse due to German influence.
3. Þjóðkonungr essentially means High King or Kings of Kings, which is a concept that would be much more natively familiar to the Norse, I believe.

Also, I will at the same time say that while the sagas are one of the few rare literary sources for Old Norse, they were written centuries after the events described. They are not strictly factual, and obviously heavily romanticized. Are there even any indications that Þjóðkonungr was actually used by the Norse kings of Scandinavia in any type of official matter after they “unified” their kingdoms?

When we lack real alternatives for titles, like we do for Old Norse aren't we supposed to either construct or extrapolate what the title could potentially be? At the start of the game, no Norse ruler will for example hold a Grand Duchy, so it hardly matters that the title we use for it is anachronistic. If we don’t do it, we will inevitably end up with cultures like Old Norse using English titles for most of the titles, especially for languages that died out or diverged like Old Norse did.

 

[Farabi]

This is a good idea. I can add some Arabic titles at some point, however given the significant differences between medieval Christian and Islamic states I think we really need to see how the CK3 cultural/religious mechanics work in practice so that the most fitting title for each role is chosen, instead of one that is simply a modern translation of the English. So I think I'll wait until after release date!

 

[Urkaun]

Personally, I would use Þjóðkonungr as the title for Old Norse emperors for a few reasons.

1. Keisari was never a title used by Old Norse rulers, assumedly it was only used for the rulers of HRE and Byzantium.
2. Keisari is ultimately to the Norse a foreign Christian title which was introduced to Old Norse due to German influence.
3. Þjóðkonungr essentially means High King or Kings of Kings, which is a concept that would be much more natively familiar to the Norse, I believe.

Also, I will at the same time say that while the sagas are one of the few rare literary sources for Old Norse, they were written centuries after the events described. They are not strictly factual, and obviously heavily romanticized. Are there even any indications that Þjóðkonungr was actually used by the Norse kings of Scandinavia in any type of official matter after they “unified” their kingdoms?

When we lack real alternatives for titles, like we do for Old Norse aren't we supposed to either construct or extrapolate what the title could potentially be? At the start of the game, no Norse ruler will for example hold a Grand Duchy, so it hardly matters that the title we use for it is anachronistic. If we don’t do it, we will inevitably end up with cultures like Old Norse using English titles for most of the titles, especially for languages that died out or diverged like Old Norse did.

I actually agree with this. Keisari is potentially derived either from Middle Low German or it's a weak declension of the proper name and strong noun 'Keisarr', from Proto-Germanic 'Kaisaraz', borrowed directly from Latin 'Caesar'. Either way, it's used exclusively to refer to foreign imperial rulers, never Norse rulers.

'Þjóðkonungr' is attested in Heimskringla in a context denoting a 'High King' of a unified kingdom. The earlier form would've been 'Þjóðann', from Proto-Germanic 'Þeudanaz', but 'Þjóðann' only appears in Old Norse poetry and very rarely, if ever, in Old Norse prose. 'Þjóðann' itself is very archaic but it has cognates in other Germanic languages like Gothic 'Þiudans', which is used to translate Greek 'βᾰσῐλεύς' (basileús).

Personally, I think all independent Norse rulers, whether tribal or feudal, that are of county, duchy or kingdom-rank, should be titled 'Konungr'. Vassal duke-ranks should be 'Jarl' and vassal count-ranks should be 'Hǫfðingi'. Vassal barons should be 'Hersir' and temple-holders 'Hofgoði'. City-holders/mayors could be 'Greifi' as it's the closest Old Norse cognate to Old English 'ġerēfa', which is a reeve of a town. Again, it's a matter of conjecture as Viking Age Scandinavia didn't really have 'mayors'. Cities and towns were the chief seat of the local ruler and part of their personal domain e.g. Túnsberg being the seat of Haraldr Fairhair in Vestfold prior to unification.

The pre-unification rulers of the petty kingdoms (fylki) of Norway were definitely 'konungar' (county-rank), as were the Norse kings in Jórvík (duchy-rank). It seems anachronistic for independent Norse rulers like Haraldr Fairhair and Halfdan Whiteshirt to be 'Chief' or 'Jarl' when they were properly regarded as kings in 867 AD.

 

[Urkaun]

The only issue is that petty kings were handled automatically by ck2 by a cultural basis. So Þjóðkonungr would show up as the petty name.

It would be better to have konungr stay as king and have Þjóðkonungr be a conditional title for the 3 nations

Yeah, that's what I meant for a kingdom-rank title. If it's possible to code it in a way, forming Norway, Sweden or Denmark could give the 'Þjóðkonungr' title whereas petty kingdoms, independent duchy and county-ranks could be just 'konungr'.

 

[Viridianus]

BTW, "druzhinnik" is ideal term for "knights" as they were people closest to knyaz and who fight alongside with him. So it fits perfectly into game mechanics category "knight". I wonder why it is "contested" it the table.

Because initially (don't laugh) I had воевода and дружинник reversed

Tysyatskii is out of CK3 scale of things, it is something below commander of army and tied to the detachment size

Don't be fooled by its etymology. Only the strongest князья could send thousands of soldiers in a battle, for most it would be a high enough estimate to have a single, unique тысяцкий.

When we lack real alternatives for titles, like we do for Old Norse aren't we supposed to either construct or extrapolate what the title could potentially be?

That's true; my extrapolation, however, would suggest that, if the Norse managed to unite Scandinavia under a single rule, their leader could claim either.

I don't see easy way to fit Rus titles into 4-tier feudal ladder

*5-tier. And that's not a problem specific to Rus, see comments on Celtic titles, for instance, or the discussion on Norse in between our posts.

It seems anachronistic for independent Norse rulers like Haraldr Fairhair and Halfdan Whiteshirt to be 'Chief' or 'Jarl' when they were properly regarded as kings in 867 AD.

That's what Petty Kings in CKII were for.

Personally, I think all independent Norse rulers, whether tribal or feudal, that are of county, duchy or kingdom-rank, should be titled 'Konungr'.

Upholding level distinctions is good gameplay-wise - that's why I (well, rather, me and @Keder) have gone out of our way NOT to have just князь for the three levels in East Slavic.

 

[Urkaun]

That's what Petty Kings in CKII were for.

Upholding level distinctions is good gameplay-wise - that's why I (well, rather, me and @Keder) have gone out of our way NOT to have just князь for the three levels in East Slavic.

In Old Norse, there are specific titles for different ranks of petty kings and chieftains etc., but a lot are simply used in poetry for alliteration purposes and konungr became the most common title for all types of kings in prose.

Hersir or heraðskonungr was a chief of a herað (an administrative division equivalent to the Old English hundred, which was roughly barony-rank)

Fylkir or fylkiskonungr was a petty king of a fylki (Norwegian petty kingdom equivalent to the Old English sċīr, which was county-rank)

Old Norse didn't really have a specific title for a duchy-rank ruler. The Víkin region was made up of several fylki (Vingulmǫrk, Vestfold and Ránríki) in 867 AD and ruled by Haraldr Fairhair, but his title was still just konungr. Konungr was used for both an independent ruler of a single fylki or several and jarl for a vassal ruler of a single fylki or several. Counties were only called fylki in Norway and were subdivided into herað (pl. heruð). In Denmark, there were three land (pl. lǫnd) or 'regions' of duchy-rank (Jótland, Selundr and Skáney) which were subdivided into sýsla of county-rank which were further subdivided into herað (pl. heruð) of barony-rank. In Sweden, a county was called landskap or folkland, equivalent to the Norwegian fylki, which was subdivided into herað (pl. heruð), like Norway and Denmark.

Hǫfðingi was a fairly non-specific term for a ruler or leader of any rank, simply meaning 'chief' or 'leader'. For example, it's used to describe konungr, jarl, hersir and even leaders of small bands of men (sveitar-hǫfðingi is seen in Old Norse prose to describe the military officers of a sveit or 'squad' of 12 men).

There's also the title dróttinn, which means 'warlord' and Snorri says it was the original title of petty kings in Norway before konungr. The feminine noun dróttning, meaning 'queen', is formed from this title. The issue with dróttinn is that whilst all konungar, jarlar, hersar etc. were also dróttnar in the sense that they were all warlords with their own personal warbands/retinues called a drótt, not all dróttnar were necessarily kings or chiefs. Any free man, including an ordinary karl or bóndi, could be a dróttinn in their own right; all they needed was the respect and support of other free men willing to follow him. I guess dróttinn could be used for Norse petty kings but it could equally be used for Norse mercenary leaders.

 

[Urkaun]

Would богатырь (bogatyrĭ) or витязь (vityazĭ) be an appropriate Old East Slavic term for 'knight', since they were the elite members of the дружина (družina)? A дружинник (družinnik) would just be a professional warrior in the men-at-arms regiment/družina.

The average size of a дружина (družina) would be roughly similar to an Old Norse drótt i.e. around 100-300 men in the 9th century. All of them would be considered дружинники (družinniki) but only a tiny minority would be a богатырь (bogatyrĭ) or витязь (vityazĭ). Men-at-arms regiments are around the same size as a družina, drótt, retinue etc. in CKIII and knights are few in number even for the king-rank ruler.

CKIII's men-at-arms vs. levies dichotomy fits in with what we know of Norse and East Slavic military organisation in the period. For example, a Norse drótt or East Slavic дружина (družina) would be a 'men-at-arms' regiment and a Norse herr or East Slavic вои (voi) would be a levy or tribal army, commanded by a Norse hertogi or East Slavic воѥвода (vojevoda).

 

[Viridianus]

Would богатырь (bogatyrĭ) or витязь (vityazĭ) be an appropriate Old East Slavic term for 'knight', since they were the elite members of the дружина (družina)? A дружинник (družinnik) would just be a professional warrior in the men-at-arms regiment/družina.

The average size of a дружина (družina) would be roughly similar to an Old Norse drótt i.e. around 100-300 men in the 9th century. All of them would be considered дружинники (družinniki) but only a tiny minority would be a богатырь (bogatyrĭ) or витязь (vityazĭ). Men-at-arms regiments are around the same size as a družina, drótt, retinue etc. in CKIII and knights are few in number even for the king-rank ruler.

CKIII's men-at-arms vs. levies dichotomy fits in with what we know of Norse and East Slavic military organisation in the period. For example, a Norse drótt or East Slavic дружина (družina) would be a 'men-at-arms' regiment and a Norse herr or East Slavic вои (voi) would be a levy or tribal army, commanded by a Norse hertogi or East Slavic воѥвода (vojevoda).

Богатырь is clearly a Turkic borrowing. Витязь could work (though a feminitive form is problematic).

Yeah, that's somewhat true. That's applicable to "knights" too, though.

Unrelatedly, I chose not to reflect the extra-short vowels though they were certainly a thing for the better part of the timeline: it would be confusing for most non-professionals.

 

[Urkaun]

Богатырь is clearly a Turkic borrowing. Витязь could work (though a feminitive form is problematic).

Yeah, that's somewhat true. That's applicable to "knights" too, though.

Unrelatedly, I chose not to reflect the extra-short vowels though they were certainly a thing for the better part of the timeline: it would be confusing for most non-professionals.

I'm wondering for SWMH/HIP purposes if the ultra-short vowels could be written in the code. They couldn't be used in CKII's code (neither could Old Norse ǫ for that matter; they had to use ö instead).

 

[Aemr]

If we look under the tribal and early medieval sections of this image we can see the sentence 'Franconians have reached this Era'. From this we can infer two things;

1. Paradox are bad at grammar.
2. The Title God demands more titles.

Basically, we need a new line for a plural noun for members of each culture, not just an adjective. I'm adding one to the sheet. Happy translating!

 

[Viridianus]

I'm wondering for SWMH/HIP purposes if the ultra-short vowels could be written in the code. They couldn't be used in CKII's code (neither could Old Norse ǫ for that matter; they had to use ö instead).

One of the Dev's comments said that they're much better with diacritics now; hopefully they switched to Unicode.

 

[TheGib770]

This is a good idea. I can add some Arabic titles at some point, however given the significant differences between medieval Christian and Islamic states I think we really need to see how the CK3 cultural/religious mechanics work in practice so that the most fitting title for each role is chosen, instead of one that is simply a modern translation of the English. So I think I'll wait until after release date!

I have already separated secular kings and sultans for that but I have stated before that some titles might be missing as it's not released.

Yeah, that's what I meant for a kingdom-rank title. If it's possible to code it in a way, forming Norway, Sweden or Denmark could give the 'Þjóðkonungr' title whereas petty kingdoms, independent duchy and county-ranks could be just 'konungr'.

There are two different ways I know you can do in ck2, but if it's similar it won't be ironman compatible.

In Old Norse, there are specific titles for different ranks of petty kings and chieftains etc., but a lot are simply used in poetry for alliteration purposes and konungr became the most common title for all types of kings in prose.

Hersir or heraðskonungr was a chief of a herað (an administrative division equivalent to the Old English hundred, which was roughly barony-rank)

Fylkir or fylkiskonungr was a petty king of a fylki (Norwegian petty kingdom equivalent to the Old English sċīr, which was county-rank)

Old Norse didn't really have a specific title for a duchy-rank ruler. The Víkin region was made up of several fylki (Vingulmǫrk, Vestfold and Ránríki) in 867 AD and ruled by Haraldr Fairhair, but his title was still just konungr. Konungr was used for both an independent ruler of a single fylki or several and jarl for a vassal ruler of a single fylki or several. Counties were only called fylki in Norway and were subdivided into herað (pl. heruð). In Denmark, there were three land (pl. lǫnd) or 'regions' of duchy-rank (Jótland, Selundr and Skáney) which were subdivided into sýsla of county-rank which were further subdivided into herað (pl. heruð) of barony-rank. In Sweden, a county was called landskap or folkland, equivalent to the Norwegian fylki, which was subdivided into herað (pl. heruð), like Norway and Denmark.

Hǫfðingi was a fairly non-specific term for a ruler or leader of any rank, simply meaning 'chief' or 'leader'. For example, it's used to describe konungr, jarl, hersir and even leaders of small bands of men (sveitar-hǫfðingi is seen in Old Norse prose to describe the military officers of a sveit or 'squad' of 12 men).

There's also the title dróttinn, which means 'warlord' and Snorri says it was the original title of petty kings in Norway before konungr. The feminine noun dróttning, meaning 'queen', is formed from this title. The issue with dróttinn is that whilst all konungar, jarlar, hersar etc. were also dróttnar in the sense that they were all warlords with their own personal warbands/retinues called a drótt, not all dróttnar were necessarily kings or chiefs. Any free man, including an ordinary karl or bóndi, could be a dróttinn in their own right; all they needed was the respect and support of other free men willing to follow him. I guess dróttinn could be used for Norse petty kings but it could equally be used for Norse mercenary leaders.

Best fit is best! But if you can tie it to a possible game mechanic or situation, you can add them to the conditional title sheet.

I'm wondering for SWMH/HIP purposes if the ultra-short vowels could be written in the code. They couldn't be used in CKII's code (neither could Old Norse ǫ for that matter; they had to use ö instead).

The newer paradox games have UTF-8 for those vowels, but require the font to support it. I am not good at font modding, but I'll probably bring that up on this thread for my first release. Feel free to write it in the sheet.

If we look under the tribal and early medieval sections of this image we can see the sentence 'Franconians have reached this Era'. From this we can infer two things;
1. Paradox are bad at grammar.
2. The Title God demands more titles.
Basically, we need a new line for a plural noun for members of each culture, not just an adjective. I'm adding one to the sheet. Happy translating!

I am worried about changing tooltip localization, and might just leave the translated culture name to characters and map modes only. I want those who aren't like us to still easily play the game.

 

[Viridianus]

I am worried about changing tooltip localization, and might just leave the translated culture name to characters and map modes only. I want those who aren't like us to still easily play the game.

Those who aren't like us likely won't use the mod anyway as it's gonna rename most things And you can also make the "easy" vs. "hard" version)

 

[Aemr]

One of the Dev's comments said that they're much better with diacritics now; hopefully they switched to Unicode.

I hope so, great if true. If the ancient manuscripts can have Ẏ I want it too.

I am worried about changing tooltip localization, and might just leave the translated culture name to characters and map modes only. I want those who aren't like us to still easily play the game.

I understand your point, but perhaps we can leave it in the sheet as a reference for those of us nerds who want everything localised.

 

[TheGib770]

I understand your point, but perhaps we can leave it in the sheet as a reference for those of us nerds who want everything localised.

I mean, I haven't gone ahead and deleted it. It's going to depend on how it's localized.

It would be weird to have "Kymreics have reached this era" vs "Roi Guillaume de France."

 

[Urkaun]

I mean, I haven't gone ahead and deleted it. It's going to depend on how it's localized.

It would be weird to have "Kymreics have reached this era" vs "Roi Guillaume de France."

I personally think proper nouns and titles should be localised with all the appropriate diacritics and spelling but prepositions should remain English. For example:

Konungr Haraldr of Víkin rather than Konungr Haraldr af Víkin. Roi Guillaume of France rather than Roi Guillaume de France etc. etc.

The reason why is because many languages that we're aiming to localise are synthetic languages with highly-inflectional grammar. Konungr Haraldr af Víkin would be grammatically incorrect in Old Norse (correct form would be Konungr Haraldr af Víkinni because af as a preposition in Old Norse makes the following noun in its dative case). It just makes sense to have proper nouns and titles in their nominative form with English prepositions, rather than try to mess around with complex inflectional systems.

Likewise, in Old East Slavic, titles usually appear in the format [title] + [adjectival placename]; for example 'Prince of Novgorod' would be кънязь новъгородьскꙑи (Kŭnjazĭ Novŭgorodĭskyi). Hard to make that work with the format in CKIII so it's best to just go with Kŭnjazĭ of Novŭgorodŭ, in my opinion.