I didn't not, you missed my point. There were suggestions about the North Sea Empire, and I stated why I thought that was a bad pick.
And your reasoning for that was wrong.
- 1
I didn't not, you missed my point. There were suggestions about the North Sea Empire, and I stated why I thought that was a bad pick.
That depends. For the Irish a high king is king-tier. For tribals a high king is emperor-tier. In the real world a high king is a king who violates narcotics laws.A high king isn't the equivalent of an emperor.
OK. What's your actual objection to non-Roman Emperors?It wasn't meant to, I just referenced it to show the scale of his realm. As I implied it he is referred to as a king after it:
Elated beyond measure with his deed, he ventured to sue for Frode's daughter; but, finding the king deaf to him, he asked Erik, who was ruling Sweden, to help him
They appear to be petty kings, Saxo says there were 170 kings, he mentions that one of them governs Orkey, another rules Estonia. Petty kings are depicted in the game as dukes.
I'm not opposed to having the emperor tier in the game but allowing its usage to everybody. As I have said, I think should be Early Medieval innovation called "Translatio imperii" or something, which would enable the formation of empires. I don't empires are a good representation of these states constantly fractured.Are you opposed to them *mechanically* having four tiers of playable ruler (count, duke, king, emperor) or to the naming convention?
Rex and his realm is regnum, his subjects are the same.As for the Gesta, are you getting "King" from the Latin (and if so which term they used for "King" is being used), or from a translation?
There are no mentions of dukes or counts, Amleth's father who ruled the Jutes under the Danish king is just governor ("praefectus").If it's a Latin translation, are any of his immediate vassals listed as dux or comes? Are the 170 kings listed with the same title as Frode?
I'm aware that non-Roman emperor equivalent exists, such as the Iranian/Greek/Mongol "king of kings" or the popular Asian version "heavenly sovereign", or Arabic caliph ("successor"). It just I don't believe high king belongs to that category, and that Norse didn't have any of those, if they had Canute would have declared himself that.Are you only a Western European Emperor if you can use the title "Imperator" and have Roman claims? And what if you're not Christian and your core lands never felt the hand of Rome - say an islamic Francia or a Norse Scandinavia or Norse Scotland-based Britannia?
The defining reason why a culture had emperors/emperor-equivalents hinged more on whether any ruler got that large than anything else.I'm not opposed to having the emperor tier in the game but allowing its usage to everybody. As I have said, I think should be Early Medieval innovation called "Translatio imperii" or something, which would enable the formation of empires. I don't empires are a good representation of these states constantly fractured.
Rex and his realm is regnum, his subjects are the same.
There are no mentions of dukes or counts, Amleth's father who ruled the Jutes under the Danish king is just governor ("praefectus").
I'm aware that non-Roman emperor equivalent exists, such as the Iranian/Greek/Mongol "king of kings" or the popular Asian version "heavenly sovereign", or Arabic caliph ("successor"). It just I don't believe high king belongs to that category, and that Norse didn't have any of those, if they had Canute would have declared himself that.
So, his father, and all other kings who doubled as kings of Norway, Scandinavia, and Denmark were anomalies as well?In terms of Canute he is an anomaly, and not the model for how we should treat every ruler.
Empire is a fun word with many different meanings. That being a state ruled by an emperor or a powerful and large entity, unfortunately, CK3 merges those concepts together.There's a reason most historians today refer to his realm as an empire.
It would only be an empire under some of the definitions.Now you can of course say that all those qualified scholars of history are wrong, and that your view is superior to theirs and that we should ignore all these qualified professionals in favor of believing in you, but honestly... Do you really expect anyone to do that?
I don't see how.So, his father, and all other kings who doubled as kings of Norway, Scandinavia, and Denmark were anomalies as well?
Empire is a fun word with many different meanings. That being a state ruled by an emperor or a powerful and large entity, unfortunately, CK3 merges those concepts together.
It would only be an empire under some of the definitions.
Well, it clearly wasn't an empire under the definition of being ruled by a person with the title of emperor.
Unquestionably it was a large and powerful entity, yes. That sense that the historians use the term empire when referring to it, CK3 concept (which is being discussed) is depicted as a unitary state, which isn't historic, thus your argument is irrelevant and discredeting.