Claimable duchy & kingdom setups for CK 1.05

[Olaus Petrus]

Because some people guestioned my argument that Russians saw Veliky Kniaz as a king, I give you actual proof. In 1323 Veliky Kniaz Jurij Danilovitsch and Swedish king Magnus Eriksson made treaty of Nöteborg (Orekhovo).

Ego rex magnus Jwrghe cum borgræwio Alfarmio, cum duce Abraham, cum tota communitate Nogardie, ego terminaueram cum fratre meo rege Swechie, Magno Erici filio. [...]

Dedit rex magnus Jwrge cum omnibus de Nogardia pro amicicia tria gislalagh: Sawolax, Jæskis et Ægrepæ, Carelsk gislalagh.

Whole treaty

As you can see Veliky Kniaz = Rex Magnus

 

[unmerged(11427)]

As you can see Veliky Kniaz = Rex Magnus

I must applaud your persistence. In my opinion you proved that it is possible to translate Veliki Knez to Rex Magnus.
As far as translations go, I still believe that Dux Magnus is also a plausible translation.
Anyway, I will not claim that linguistics is the main criterion in making a decision.
Actual slavic titles are obviously a 'grey area'.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

And alltough I also admire his persistence, Byakhiam has made it clear already that there will not be a king of Russia at the start of any scenarion.

 

[Calgacus]

Well, it's sad; Rus'ia should have its king in every scenario, not a bunch of Dukes. My understanding is that Byakhiam is going to introduce non-recreatable third tier titles for the Dukes of Kiev and Vladimir (1337), and that is probably the best the historical accuracists here can hope for. I at any rate will continue to use the die cheat to create a Kingdom of Rus at the start of evey scenario. I can tell you all here that, with the exception of one of the betas a while ago, the Kingdom tends to fragment (esp. so in the latest patch), and rarely becomes a super-kingdom. My suspicion is that if the recreatable "Kingdom of Russia" were reduced to it's High Medieval size, rather than the huge early modern size, few people would have a problem with it.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

I would only add non-recreatable king titles to Russia, if any, to represent grand princes that had power over other princes. It would allow representing such hierarchies, but would prevent the quick reassembly of the kingdom in the event of breakup.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

I must applaud your persistence. In my opinion you proved that it is possible to translate Veliki Knez to Rex Magnus.
As far as translations go, I still believe that Dux Magnus is also a plausible translation.
Anyway, I will not claim that linguistics is the main criterion in making a decision.
Actual slavic titles are obviously a 'grey area'.

You can translate it also to Magnus Dux, but by doing that you will continue Latin tradition, which is pejorative towards Russian rulers. Latin christians wanted to see themselves better than Russians. For example Johannes de Plano Carpini, in his book Historia Mongalorum quos nos Tartaros appellamus, call Russian rulers as dux. But he also calls Danilij Romanovits Kniaz of Galicia as a rex. Danilij of Galicia supported Catholism and was later crowned to a Catholic king. For some reason Catholics didn't want to recognise Russian rulers as their equals, although Byzantines and other Orthodox rulers recognise Veliky Kniaz as a king. But I think that it will not lead anywhere to continue this dispute here.

IMHO current system treats situation of Rus badly. Most correct setup for 1066 would be that Iziaslav of Kiev is king of Rus, but other Russian rulers should have revolting trait and claim to the king title. If game is open ended Iziaslav should have similar opportunity to stop disintegration of Rus, as Byzantines have opportunity to avoid Manzikert.

 

[Calgacus]

While non-recreatable King titles for the rulers of Kiev and (later) Vladimir are better than the current situation, there is little reason not have the King of Rus' in the game other than the misplaced objections of some posters here. You'd get the impression the Kingdom would be enormous, but count the provinces! Should we get rid of France, replacing him with the Duke of Francia (perhaps giving him a non-recreatable King of France title?) because many of the vassals were only nominal for long periods? Yes the kingdom should incur many revolts, but it should not be eliminated from existence because it wasn't a bureaucratic autocracy like England or Byzantium. The concept of High King never disappeared from Rus'ia in this period. This fact is obscured by the tendency to call the later medieval high kingdom Muscovy, but the rulers of that city only had the title "High King" by virtue of being appointed to the seat of Vladimir by the Khan at Sarai, and had to compete for the honor with Tver. Now how can that be represented in the game under the current system?

Olaus Petrus is of course correct. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Latins started making kingship a narrow concept obtained only by ecclesiatical annointing and the title rex, which according to their precepts could be handed out only by the Pope or an Emperor. Obviously, the only people who took it seriously were the people who created it; the bestowal of "rex" on Mindaugas meant nothing to his pagan Lithuanian subjects; Ivan III sent the German embassy that offered him the kingdom of Russia packing, and was happy to call himself the "White Emperor". Now, if CK is going to slavishly follow this logic, why don't we rename Orthodox "Schimatic" and Islam Infidel? That after all is what the CK period Latin christians called them. Or do we actually think it may not be a good thing to swallow hook, line and sinker the propaganda of the high medieval Latin church?

 

[Duuk]

I would only add non-recreatable king titles to Russia, if any, to represent grand princes that had power over other princes. It would allow representing such hierarchies, but would prevent the quick reassembly of the kingdom in the event of breakup.

...which of course introduces the "Kingdom of Italy" issue. Once a title exists in the game, there is no way to remove it.

Please don't add any "semi historical" titles to the Russian lands. None of those "titles" persisted, none of them had any meaningful value consistantly through the entire timespan of the game, and none of them should be included.

 

[Duuk]

While non-recreatable King titles for the rulers of Kiev and (later) Vladimir are better than the current situation, there is little reason not have the King of Rus' in the game other than the misplaced objections of some posters here.

And, of course, the fact that no one was "King of Russia" in the timeframe, no one was expected to levy armies to support any "King of Russia", and tributes/etc were not the same as duty to liege.

From a GAME PLAY standpoint, no one was ever King of Russia until the Romanovs, and not even them at first.

If we go by "what their title was", then Ireland, a 16 province island, will have 5-8 King titles *AND* a "High King" title.

I'm sure we don't want that.

 

[Calgacus]

And, of course, the fact that no one was "King of Russia" in the timeframe, no one was expected to levy armies to support any "King of Russia", and tributes/etc were not the same as duty to liege.

From a GAME PLAY standpoint, no one was ever King of Russia until the Romanovs, and not even them at first.

If we go by "what their title was", then Ireland, a 16 province island, will have 5-8 King titles *AND* a "High King" title.

I'm sure we don't want that.

"King of Russia" never existed in this literal sense, not even in the Romanov time, when it was "Emperor of Russia". King of Russia is not my suggestion, just the title CK's programmers chose, but is also one of many Latin "equivalents" of the title being used in Russia. If the developers had made "Grand Prince" or "High King" appear for third tier rulers of Russian culture instead of King there would be no problem, but we got to deal with what they gave us, and not use what they gave us as an excuse to do nothing.

 

[Calgacus]

BTW, I'll add for what it's worth, the titles of the Lithuanian ruler Algirdas:

Rus'ian: Великий князь
Latin: Magnus Rex, Supremus Princeps
Greek: Βασιλευς

Rowell, Lithuania Ascending, p. 66

 

[Olaus Petrus]

And, of course, the fact that no one was "King of Russia" in the timeframe, no one was expected to levy armies to support any "King of Russia", and tributes/etc were not the same as duty to liege.

From a GAME PLAY standpoint, no one was ever King of Russia until the Romanovs, and not even them at first.

If we go by "what their title was", then Ireland, a 16 province island, will have 5-8 King titles *AND* a "High King" title.

I'm sure we don't want that.

What CK engine fails to show, is that there were different kinds of kings in middle ages. In British Isles there were, as you said, different petty kings in Ireland and High Kings who theoretically were rulers over other kings. Before CK timeframe there was many petty kingdoms in Europe, for example in Norway. Irish kings are petty kings, like the Norse kings of Man. IMHO in CK engine petty kings are better as dukes, because there isn't petty king tier.

Russia's situation is however different, when Kievan Rus was a strong state High king (Veliky Kniaz) collected taxes from petty kings (Kniaz). During Mongol occupation main function of Veliky Kniaz was to collect taxes in Russian lands and send these taxes to Mongol Khan. Like kings of Georgia, high kings of Rus were vassals of the Mongol khans.

What some people fail to see is that, there is different form of kings and kingdoms. Latin high medieval model wasn't the only one. In different cultures traditions and functions of the kingship were different. Best translation for Veliky Kniaz is a high king, but as I said earlier Latins used pejorative word Grand Prince. Latin Christians called Byzantine emperor as king of the Greeks and Byzantines called Holy Roman emperor as a king of Germans. Western terms are bad for describing rulers of the other cultures. But we have to deal with the terminology we have, even when it creates false images.

 

[Brian Bóruma]

What CK engine fails to show, is that there were different kinds of kings in middle ages. In British Isles there were, as you said, different petty kings in Ireland and High Kings who theoretically were rulers over other kings. Before CK timeframe there was many petty kingdoms in Europe, for example in Norway. Irish kings are petty kings, like the Norse kings of Man. IMHO in CK engine petty kings are better as dukes, because there isn't petty king tier.

Russia's situation is however different, when Kievan Rus was a strong state High king (Veliky Kniaz) collected taxes from petty kings (Kniaz). During Mongol occupation main function of Veliky Kniaz was to collect taxes in Russian lands and send these taxes to Mongol Khan. Like kings of Georgia, high kings of Rus were vassals of the Mongol khans.

What some people fail to see is that, there is different form of kings and kingdoms. Latin high medieval model wasn't the only one. In different cultures traditions and functions of the kingship were different. Best translation for Veliky Kniaz is a high king, but as I said earlier Latins used pejorative word Grand Prince. Latin Christians called Byzantine emperor as king of the Greeks and Byzantines called Holy Roman emperor as a king of Germans. Western terms are bad for describing rulers of the other cultures. But we have to deal with the terminology we have, even when it creates false images.

Yeah. What he said. Don't base what other cultures recognize you as, but as what you see yourself as. Hence why Ireland is a duchy in the 1187 scenario -- because the Lord of Ireland never claimed to be a king.

I'd *love* to see a High King tier in CK2. It'd be nearly identical to a normal king, except probably a little bit weaker. See: Scotland, Ireland, and Russia for examples of High Kings. Still, as that's only a fantasy hope, I'll just nod and say "Yep. Duke of Kiev sure looks silly."

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Duuk still has a point that Russia wasn't as unified as most entities we have as kingdoms.

 

[Calgacus]

Duuk still has a point that Russia wasn't as unified as most entities we have as kingdoms.

I'd put it to you that kingdoms such as France and Scotland were no more united in 1066 than the proper lands of Rus'ia (not the CK recreatable area). The only argument of Duuk's with which I sympathize is the name, but like I said, that is just what we have to deal with, and cannot be used as an excuse to maintain the current inaccurate situation.

 

[Duuk]

I'd put it to you that kingdoms such as France and Scotland were no more united in 1066 than the proper lands of Rus'ia (not the CK recreatable area). The only argument of Duuk's with which I sympathize is the name, but like I said, that is just what we have to deal with, and cannot be used as an excuse to maintain the current inaccurate situation.

It *is* what we have to deal with. And because of the limitations of the game engine, there is no good way to represent "King with no real power or with limited powers".

In CK terms, everyone is Louis XIV or everyone is John the Pretender. You've either got it (and 100% loyalty) or you don't got it, and you're in constant civil war.

I love CK, but I'll admit the massive flaws in the system and accept that it can't be changed. So we work with what we've got. We make minor tweaks that make sense, understanding the ramifications of those actions. We understand that a King or Duke level title, once created, cannot be destroyed short of muslim/pagan conquest! So we should be VERY, VERY careful creating a vaguely historical title, because it can't disappear like it did historically.

Could this "Grand King Prince" thing levy and mobilize all of Russia against Sweden in 1066? Doubtful. So why should we give him that ability?

Byakhiam, now you know why I suggested right before 1.05 came out that we let 1.05 be the "final" patch for CK and just let it stay "broken" in its current state. We wind up having the discussions like this, with people trying to implement changes that might be historical but just can't work in the game system. And there isn't enough coding time left to request a new feature, as we might not even have the coding time to fix the existing bugs!

 

[Olaus Petrus]

It *is* what we have to deal with. And because of the limitations of the game engine, there is no good way to represent "King with no real power or with limited powers".

In CK terms, everyone is Louis XIV or everyone is John the Pretender. You've either got it (and 100% loyalty) or you don't got it, and you're in constant civil war.

I love CK, but I'll admit the massive flaws in the system and accept that it can't be changed. So we work with what we've got. We make minor tweaks that make sense, understanding the ramifications of those actions. We understand that a King or Duke level title, once created, cannot be destroyed short of muslim/pagan conquest! So we should be VERY, VERY careful creating a vaguely historical title, because it can't disappear like it did historically.

Could this "Grand King Prince" thing levy and mobilize all of Russia against Sweden in 1066? Doubtful. So why should we give him that ability?

Not more unlikely than a German king who moves armies of whole Germany against Fatimids. CK system isn't very accurate in medieval warfare, which were fought mostly between small armies. Rus was a kingdom, maybe decentralized one but certainly a kingdom in 1066. Later it was more disintegrated, but it should be kingdom at least in 1066 scenario.

Byakhiam, now you know why I suggested right before 1.05 came out that we let 1.05 be the "final" patch for CK and just let it stay "broken" in its current state. We wind up having the discussions like this, with people trying to implement changes that might be historical but just can't work in the game system. And there isn't enough coding time left to request a new feature, as we might not even have the coding time to fix the existing bugs!

What is wrong about the fact that we try to find most correct setup, there are still many issues in scenario setup, which could need more attention. Friendly discussion about the kingdoms and duchies won't hurt anyone.

 

[Third Angel]

Could this "Grand King Prince" thing levy and mobilize all of Russia against Sweden in 1066? Doubtful. So why should we give him that ability?

This is also true for the King of France. The count of Toulouse or the Duke of Aquitaine, even more than other vassals, sweared formal oaths but they acted as nearly independant rulers.

 

[Duuk]

This is also true for the King of France. The count of Toulouse or the Duke of Aquitaine, even more than other vassals, sweared formal oaths but they acted as nearly independant rulers.

Only slightly true, since there was a "legal" oath involved. In addition, by the end of the game France was a unified state. In 1453, there was even LESS "Kingdom of Russia".

Mongols or not, Russia didn't unify in this timeframe and I don't want to see it.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

In CK terms, everyone is Louis XIV or everyone is John the Pretender. You've either got it (and 100% loyalty) or you don't got it, and you're in constant civil war.

Actually, as has been suggested before, were all divided by 10 then it wouldn't be the case so much.