• 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.
This sounds like the most ridiculous Peoples Front of Judea/Judean People's Front thing.
If you bothered to read further you'd see "I know what you're thinking. "So what? That doesn't warrant splitting Kent in two, it's just semantics". However, these "semantics" were applied because of a clear political (possibly also ethnic) demarcation between two halves of Kent."
 
  • 9
  • 3
Reactions:
"Despite the ecclesiastical division, Kent is known to have been governed by a single Ealdorman. "
"Kent would consequently be left as a County Palatine with Odo of Bayeux as its Count Palatine "
So... it was one county.
 
  • 14
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
"Despite the ecclesiastical division, Kent is known to have been governed by a single Ealdorman. "
"Kent would consequently be left as a County Palatine with Odo of Bayeux as its Count Palatine "
So... it was one county.
No, and furthermore, many counties already aren't intended to reflect accurate political divisions because... well, political divisions change. In 867, any political, religious, or possibly ethnic division would no doubt, still exist. Considering there was still a Kingdom of Kent until 871.

I wouldn't ask for this if baronies could switch hands between counties, but that's a hardcoded no by now.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
So it was only ever ruled by one person except for maybe 4 years at the start of the game's earlier start date.
So... it was basically one county.
 
  • 14
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Dividing Kent into two counties would be a case of absurd pedantry. Unlike Yorkshire, Kent isn't a large county by English standards. Extremely small counties are problematic graphically. Not every historical geographic entity can be represented in the game. I don't want tiny microcounties--We have baronies. I don't think any of the information in the original post would have any meaningful effect on play, even if Kent starts as an independent state in 867..

The idea is as silly as dividing Forez into "Forez where the Z is pronounced" and "Forez where the Z is silent". Yes, there is a historical fact behind this division, but so (expletive) what?
 
  • 14
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
So it was only ever ruled by one person except for maybe 4 years at the start of the game's earlier start date.
So... it was basically one county.
It was always ruled by multiple people from the 600s up until 871. I've put this under "divide kent", but I assume you missed it or didn't care so I'll remove the spoiler.
Yes, there is a historical fact behind this division, but so (expletive) what?
I don't really see the merit in this as an argument since it could be used for virtually any county, but I suppose fair point.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
It was always ruled by multiple people from the 600s up until 871. I've put this under "divide kent", but I assume you missed it or didn't care so I'll remove the spoiler.

I don't really see the merit in this as an argument since it could be used for virtually any county, but I suppose fair point.
It may have been *previously* ruled by separate people, but for almost the entire period of the game it was a single administrative unit? Is that what you're saying in the original post?


The two bishoprics was somewhat complicated by the fact that Canterbury was claiming (and largely granted) primacy over other English sees, and thus Rochester was in the position of what would now be a co-adjutator bishop, administrating the vast majority of what would be Canterbury's "natural" see.
And despite the division between the two bishops, it had a single ealdorman governing it...

This does not sound like grounds to break up the county into two small, weak, and poor counties.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
It may have been *previously* ruled by separate people, but for almost the entire period of the game it was a single administrative unit? Is that what you're saying in the original post?
After Kent's proper integration into Wessex, possibly. There doesn't seem to be much information about the Ealdormen in that area, but one that I know of is mentioned as Ealdorman of Kent, so I'd assume so.
The two bishoprics was somewhat complicated by the fact that Canterbury was claiming (and largely granted) primacy over other English sees, and thus Rochester was in the position of what would now be a co-adjutator bishop, administrating the vast majority of what would be Canterbury's "natural" see.
Not sure if this is relevant, but I found it a little strange the Archbishop of York continued to be... Archbishop? I'd assume there'd be a lot of conflict between the two.
This does not sound like grounds to break up the county into two small, weak, and poor counties.
Ah, good point. Never considered their wealth/strength.
 
After Kent's proper integration into Wessex, possibly. There doesn't seem to be much information about the Ealdormen in that area, but one that I know of is mentioned as Ealdorman of Kent, so I'd assume so.

Not sure if this is relevant, but I found it a little strange the Archbishop of York continued to be... Archbishop? I'd assume there'd be a lot of conflict between the two.

Ah, good point. Never considered their wealth/strength.
There was a lot of conflict at various points between the Archbishops of York and Canterbury - but ultimately the two are far enough apart that it makes sense to have two archbishops overseeing the various bishops. It's then complicated by their titles (York is "Primate of England", Canterbury is "Primate of *All* England") and that Durham possibly has more temporal power than either during the period, being the head of the County Palatine of Durham in addition to his church rank.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
There was a lot of conflict at various points between the Archbishops of York and Canterbury - but ultimately the two are far enough apart that it makes sense to have two archbishops overseeing the various bishops. It's then complicated by their titles (York is "Primate of England", Canterbury is "Primate of *All* England") and that Durham possibly has more temporal power than either during the period, being the head of the County Palatine of Durham in addition to his church rank.
Huh. Sounds like I'm gonna read up on it. I stopped paying much attention to religion in England after the Synod of Whitby and Bede, and from that point onwards I only cared about '"pre-Protestant" Lollards.

Is England unique in having two Archbishops, or was that fairly common?

Also, since I'm giving up on the whole "East/West" Kent thing, I'll just move on the "Ephesos" vs "Samos".
 
As far as I know, the English arrangement was unique, based in its own geography and history. France, being larger, would have had multiple ecclesiastical provinces with the Archbishop of Lyon as primate. However, the status of Primate of the Gauls would not have the same role in France as Canterbury would have for England.
 
Huh. Sounds like I'm gonna read up on it. I stopped paying much attention to religion in England after the Synod of Whitby and Bede, and from that point onwards I only cared about '"pre-Protestant" Lollards.

Is England unique in having two Archbishops, or was that fairly common?

Also, since I'm giving up on the whole "East/West" Kent thing, I'll just move on the "Ephesos" vs "Samos".
Ireland had at least two bishops during the 5 kingdoms period vying for the position of Archbishop, and Primacy over all of Ireland, based on whether they're the successor and heir of Patrick, or successor and heir of the oldest Church efforts in Ireland, although at appears that Armagh (the heirs of Patrick) won out.

In 1152 Tuam, Cashel and Dublin were raised to archbishop level, alongside Armagh, with Armagh having primacy. (Armagh is "Primate of all Ireland", Dublin is "Primate of Ireland").


It looks like Scotland developed two archbishoprics towards the end of the 15th century, just in time for the reformation. (St. Andrews 1472 and Glasgow 1492).
 
We definately do not need more counties in England. In CK2 Empire of Britannia consists of 85 counties. Hispania (much bigger region) = 61 counties. Freaking Empire of Rus' barely beats Britannia with its 90 counties. We need more detalisation in other lands, not British Isles. Britannia is OP as F in CK2.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
There was a lot of conflict at various points between the Archbishops of York and Canterbury - but ultimately the two are far enough apart that it makes sense to have two archbishops overseeing the various bishops. It's then complicated by their titles (York is "Primate of England", Canterbury is "Primate of *All* England") and that Durham possibly has more temporal power than either during the period, being the head of the County Palatine of Durham in addition to his church rank.
Reminds me of how, in the 80s and 90s, Manhattan had a Ray's Pizza, a Famous Ray's Pizza, an Original Ray's Pizza, AND a Famous Original Ray's Pizza.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Dude did you just literally write half an A4 page about goddamn KENT and are arguing with strangers about dividing a single county in England, which probably neither the Men of Kent nor Kentish Men care about?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The main things to remember are these:
1. The Men of Kent said "Byzantine Empire".
2. The Kentish Men said "East Roman Empire" and were angry and confused by the lack of naval units.
 
  • 8Haha
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The main things to remember are these:
1. The Men of Kent said "Byzantine Empire".
2. The Kentish Men said "East Roman Empire" and were angry and confused by the lack of naval units.

I was so angry and confused about the lack of naval units in Saxony. I was going for that achievement Saxons United, but discovered I had no boats. How do I conquer Kentish men of Kent if I cant swim?
 
  • 3Haha
Reactions: