-
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.
If there is no Dioclea in 1066, Ragusa doesn't need to get it.Byakhiam said:No Dioclea in 1066, but Ragusa ain't gonna get it either.
(since the title won't appear until someone makes Ragusa part of his realm, and Ragusa therefore won't "auto-pledge" to anyone until someone gets the k.o. Serbia title)
The Phoenix said:
Wasn't Serbian ruler prince in 1066? I thought that Grand Župan Mihajlo possibly received king -title in 1077.
What are you talking about?Olaus Petrus said:
Wiki English
Wiki Serbian
I thought this is a well known and accepted fact.
Fat said:
From Wikipedia:
House of Vojislavljević
Mihailo Vojisavljević
EDIT: There seems to be also longer English article about this guy, which I didn't first found because I wrote Mihajlo instead of Mihailo:
Mihailo I Vojislav
Last edited:
Either way it doesn't really matter for the purposes of this thread at all. In 1066 there is no kingdom of Serbia and shouldn't be either.
I don't know where do you dig up all this stuff, but I never heard of this guy before. Granted that I learned medieval history in communist regime which didn't care much about pre-1917 history.Olaus Petrus said:
Anyway, from what I could gather the claim is based on two sources:
1) A painting of Mihajlo Vojislavljević with a crown in church in Ston (today Croatia).
2) A written document called "Ljetopis popa Dukljanina". Roughly translated to "Anals of priest Dukljanin (from Duklja)". Some claim that the original manuscript does not exist, but there are (sometimes conflicting) references in later works. Even the author and the title are questioned.
Here is a link to thread in Montenegrin and/or Serbian language. The painting in question is posted there along with some quotes in Latin supposedly from the manuscript.
Discusion in that thread is of very little interest because they use these to fight out some issues between Serbs and Montenegreans...
Fat said:
From the discussion in this thread came Mihajlo, the catholic duke of Serbia in 1066.
But this all has nothing to do with the duchy setup that is discussed in this thread, as already mentioned by Byakhiam
Veldmaarschalk said:
So Mihailo will be duke of Rashka instead of duke of Serbia? What's the point in that?
Olaus Petrus said:
Because before becoming the kingdom of Serbia, the place was principality of Rashka?
Well, where I have to start first? It was a great achievement to read all these 43 pages :wacko:
1) I have read that one of the titles that emperor Friedriech II Hohenstauffen and his predecessors held was that of "Rex Arelatensis", which means King of Arles. I wonder if "Kingdom of Burgundy" should be renamed into "Kingdom of Arles". Which one is more accurate historically?
2) Will the "Kingdom of Rus" be changed into "of Russia"? I don't find it appropriate. In the middle ages the only title that could stand was ruler (prince, grand prince or whatever) of Rus; not "of Russia", which is a "product" of the new ages, when the ruler there was the Czar.
3) Also, shouldn't the Duchy of Temes be changed into Duchy of Transylvania? Is it the same region?
4) Concerning kingdoms of Greece, Anatolia, Rome or Rum.
Although, [if I have understood well], there is no case that we see such ahistorical "creations" in CK (thanks to Byakhiam's and Veldmaarschalk's excellent knowledge of history!-I have to admit, guys ) I want too to make some comments on these (disqualified) suggestions. All these regions (today described as Greece or Anatolia) were always held or just claimed by the East Roman Empire (today known by the inapt term of "Byzantine Empire"). Let me remind you that the armies of the First Crusade liberated cities and regions in Asia Minor (occupied already by the Turks) in the name of the Byzantine Emperor, to whom they always gave bach these liberated provinces. The only exception was that of Antiocheia, where the first independent crusade-state was established. But some decades afterwards the rulers of Antiocheia recognized their subordination to the Byzantine Emperor (just typically, it's true). Besides, when nobles in Asia Minor rebeled against their Emperor (and that was a frequent phenomenon), they always tried to become Emperors, enthroned in Constantinople; they never established any independent state, like kingdom of Greece, of Anatolia or whatever. In the worst case, they pledged alliance to a heathen/muslim ruler. At last, let me tell you that the crusaders never established any kingdom of Rome, or Rum; they established the Latin Empire of Constantinople.
5) Concerning the byzantine loyalty bonus:
The basic difference between Western and Eastern Christianity in CK era was (aside from the doctrines of faith) this one: Eastern empire never met the feudal system of government or feudal structure of society. The Byzantine Emperor was the absolute owner of the empire; there never existed in East dukes, counts etc.; there were just some local noble families, owners of great part of land, that opposed sometimes to the royal family and often, after rebellions, members of these families became the new emperors. So, Byzantion should start always with royal preorgatory laws, and the loyalty bonus exists as a counterbalance of this fact; and do not forget that the easter empire was much more cohesive than the western kingdoms [and that's why sometimes I find this byzantine realm agitation a little ahistorical; but other times it is appropriate to display these rebellions I talked above ]. So, I think loyalty bonus must not be moved, but if possible increased.
6) About Strymon, Ochrid and other provinces claimed by the King of Bulgary.
First of all, I don't think CK is a way to solve political problems or, the worst, to propagandize nationalistic stands; guys, it's just a game, a game with extended historical background. If King of Bulgary, Serbia, Poland or Sweden likes the regions of Strymon, Thessalonica, Peloponnesus, Crete, Lykia etc. he has just to claim these titles, declare war upon Byzantium and conquer these provinces. It' s so simple. These regions were always claimed by the byzantine emperor. It's another fact that some nations often invaded there, sometimes established their own kingdoms in these regions, but most time looted and marauded these regions and then were goin away to their native lands. So Bulgarian state should go without Strymon or Ochrid. I think it's a good idea if at the start of any scenario, where we have any bulgarian king, he has already just claims on these provinces. But they must be of the Byzantine Empire.
7)About kingdom of Sicily and the problem in last scenario (mentioned by Olaus Petrus in page 39). I find very good the idea of Byakhiam (in page 39, too). Another one is if Duchy of Sicily is Kingdom of Sicily and allied with Aragon (not vassal any more) and, on the other hand Naples will be a non recreatable kingdom, with claims on Sicilian lands, so that they will never pledge alliance to the Sicilian Kingdom). [And what about naming Kingdom of Sicily into "Kingdom of Sicilies"?]
That's it! Thanx for your patience!
1) I have read that one of the titles that emperor Friedriech II Hohenstauffen and his predecessors held was that of "Rex Arelatensis", which means King of Arles. I wonder if "Kingdom of Burgundy" should be renamed into "Kingdom of Arles". Which one is more accurate historically?
2) Will the "Kingdom of Rus" be changed into "of Russia"? I don't find it appropriate. In the middle ages the only title that could stand was ruler (prince, grand prince or whatever) of Rus; not "of Russia", which is a "product" of the new ages, when the ruler there was the Czar.
3) Also, shouldn't the Duchy of Temes be changed into Duchy of Transylvania? Is it the same region?
4) Concerning kingdoms of Greece, Anatolia, Rome or Rum.
Although, [if I have understood well], there is no case that we see such ahistorical "creations" in CK (thanks to Byakhiam's and Veldmaarschalk's excellent knowledge of history!-I have to admit, guys
) I want too to make some comments on these (disqualified) suggestions. All these regions (today described as Greece or Anatolia) were always held or just claimed by the East Roman Empire (today known by the inapt term of "Byzantine Empire"). Let me remind you that the armies of the First Crusade liberated cities and regions in Asia Minor (occupied already by the Turks) in the name of the Byzantine Emperor, to whom they always gave bach these liberated provinces. The only exception was that of Antiocheia, where the first independent crusade-state was established. But some decades afterwards the rulers of Antiocheia recognized their subordination to the Byzantine Emperor (just typically, it's true). Besides, when nobles in Asia Minor rebeled against their Emperor (and that was a frequent phenomenon), they always tried to become Emperors, enthroned in Constantinople; they never established any independent state, like kingdom of Greece, of Anatolia or whatever. In the worst case, they pledged alliance to a heathen/muslim ruler. At last, let me tell you that the crusaders never established any kingdom of Rome, or Rum; they established the Latin Empire of Constantinople. 5) Concerning the byzantine loyalty bonus:
The basic difference between Western and Eastern Christianity in CK era was (aside from the doctrines of faith) this one: Eastern empire never met the feudal system of government or feudal structure of society. The Byzantine Emperor was the absolute owner of the empire; there never existed in East dukes, counts etc.; there were just some local noble families, owners of great part of land, that opposed sometimes to the royal family and often, after rebellions, members of these families became the new emperors. So, Byzantion should start always with royal preorgatory laws, and the loyalty bonus exists as a counterbalance of this fact; and do not forget that the easter empire was much more cohesive than the western kingdoms [and that's why sometimes I find this byzantine realm agitation a little ahistorical; but other times it is appropriate to display these rebellions I talked above
]. So, I think loyalty bonus must not be moved, but if possible increased. 6) About Strymon, Ochrid and other provinces claimed by the King of Bulgary.
First of all, I don't think CK is a way to solve political problems or, the worst, to propagandize nationalistic stands; guys, it's just a game, a game with extended historical background. If King of Bulgary, Serbia, Poland or Sweden likes the regions of Strymon, Thessalonica, Peloponnesus, Crete, Lykia etc. he has just to claim these titles, declare war upon Byzantium and conquer these provinces. It' s so simple. These regions were always claimed by the byzantine emperor. It's another fact that some nations often invaded there, sometimes established their own kingdoms in these regions, but most time looted and marauded these regions and then were goin away to their native lands. So Bulgarian state should go without Strymon or Ochrid. I think it's a good idea if at the start of any scenario, where we have any bulgarian king, he has already just claims on these provinces. But they must be of the Byzantine Empire.
7)About kingdom of Sicily and the problem in last scenario (mentioned by Olaus Petrus in page 39). I find very good the idea of Byakhiam (in page 39, too). Another one is if Duchy of Sicily is Kingdom of Sicily and allied with Aragon (not vassal any more) and, on the other hand Naples will be a non recreatable kingdom, with claims on Sicilian lands, so that they will never pledge alliance to the Sicilian Kingdom). [And what about naming Kingdom of Sicily into "Kingdom of Sicilies"?]
That's it! Thanx for your patience!
Georgia vs. Armenia
I wonder whether the Kingdom of Georgia shouldn't be a little bigger, getting (back) Tao and Dwin. According to the Wikipedia, they kept them prior to Mongol invasion.
map at the Wikipedia
I wonder whether the Kingdom of Georgia shouldn't be a little bigger, getting (back) Tao and Dwin. According to the Wikipedia, they kept them prior to Mongol invasion.
map at the Wikipedia
Durante said:5) Concerning the byzantine loyalty bonus:
The basic difference between Western and Eastern Christianity in CK era was (aside from the doctrines of faith) this one: Eastern empire never met the feudal system of government or feudal structure of society. The Byzantine Emperor was the absolute owner of the empire; there never existed in East dukes, counts etc.; there were just some local noble families, owners of great part of land, that opposed sometimes to the royal family and often, after rebellions, members of these families became the new emperors. So, Byzantion should start always with royal preorgatory laws, and the loyalty bonus exists as a counterbalance of this fact; and do not forget that the easter empire was much more cohesive than the western kingdoms [and that's why sometimes I find this byzantine realm agitation a little ahistorical; but other times it is appropriate to display these rebellions I talked above
I agree with this. Obviously the Empire can't have a different model (unless in CK2), but as it is now, this Empire which has stood for a thousand years shatters in a couple months after game start. Trying to hold it together just makes it fall apart faster, and you finally just have to convert it into the Latin Empire (Feudal Contract, etc.) if you want any peaceful time.
I would agree too, but this goes in another thread. This thread discusses just the naming and geographic setup of the kingdoms/duchies.Rocketman said:
Should I start a new one?Jinnai said:
You know, it 's not worth, if moderators say "not possible"
Well changing realm laws in startup or in-game certainly is possible, so yes, start a new thread or mention it in the Initial Thoughts thread if that's all you wanted changed for Byzantium not mentioned here or elesewhere.Durante said:Should I start a new one?
You know, it 's not worth, if moderators say "not possible"
I want to add my separate opinion about creating titles- muslims should have different titles to create (and, for God, muslim king should be called khalifs) to make some use of "muslim_duchy" and "muslim_kingdom" in province file.
Would require a code change, which we are not going to get in any beta patch.Friedrich Aller said: