do they ever learn? (managing draconially)

[unmerged(26514)]

Scenario:
I am Tsar of the kingdom of Rus, and a few random ones. Total realm of 70 provinces.

Some provinces are held as a demensne and others to various dukes and subdukes.
the vassals inherit.. and voila someone breaks free..

I as the ever Merciful Lord of Dragons, attack and decimate the disloyal family, impaling them all in true draconian fashion.. The realm given to some loyal familys son.

One would think that they eventually pick up the clues, break away, and be utterly annihilated. Stay true to the king and prosper. Any chance for that?
yeah.. and ill be racking up bb, probly

 

[unmerged(16585)]

I doubt it. They didn't really learn in real life.

 

[unmerged(26514)]

I doubt it. They didn't really learn in real life.

Ahwell.. or maybe the best solution is just to gather a much too big demensne, especially if the only downside is lower income

 

[unmerged(16585)]

And edit the save file so you have a bajillion pounds anyways. Who needs vessals?

 

[unmerged(26514)]

And edit the save file so you have a bajillion pounds anyways. Who needs vessals?

except cheating can make it less satisfying..

But to sit on a throne of bones in a huge dusty stonehall, walls covered in banners from the thousands of defeated wannabe dynasties, floor covered in skulls of the traitors from ages past.
To be feared by all, despised by your offspring and feared by your wife, who came to marry only beacause her father told her to, only known defence against my eternal hordes
Thats LIFE!

 

[unmerged(16585)]

exactly

I once tried a game of EUII where I gave myself all that money and maxed out techs. Played as Byzantium, after I annihlated the Ottomans, it got boring. Didn't last past 1430

 

[The Witch-King]

If they don't learn, just keep killing them.

Let your motto be:

"First, I will kill everyone. Then, I will rule the world!"

 

[Endre Fodstad]

except cheating can make it less satisfying..

But to sit on a throne of bones in a huge dusty stonehall, walls covered in banners from the thousands of defeated wannabe dynasties, floor covered in skulls of the traitors from ages past.
To be feared by all, despised by your offspring and feared by your wife, who came to marry only beacause her father told her to, only known defence against my eternal hordes
Thats LIFE!

Until, of course, your reputation hits rock bottom, your piety has gone down in the double hundred minuses, and every vassal goes from Devoutedly Loyal to Disloyalty Incarnate in a matter of months. Massive rebellion. Put them down again? They rebel again in a few months!

Sooner or later the larger kingdoms collapse. Believe me.

EF

 

[unmerged(16585)]

Until, of course, your reputation hits rock bottom, your piety has gone down in the double hundred minuses, and every vassal goes from Devoutedly Loyal to Disloyalty Incarnate in a matter of months. Massive rebellion. Put them down again? They rebel again in a few months!

Sooner or later the larger kingdoms collapse. Believe me.

EF

If your cheating that much, do away with Vessals

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Every time you smash a vassal you do not have a claim on(and he's declared himself independent) your reputation drops drastically. This leads to more vassals declaring themselves independent. Plus, the pope's crusading expectations on large kingdoms ensures that the king of a gargantuan catholic kingdom have to more or less be constantly on the crusade to avoid his Piety dropping like a rock. This also has an effect on vassal morale.

 

[unmerged(26514)]

So, maybe i just have to manage 80 demensne then
..with some -70% on income

 

[Varyar]

Plus, the pope's crusading expectations on large kingdoms ensures that the king of a gargantuan catholic kingdom have to more or less be constantly on the crusade to avoid his Piety dropping like a rock. This also has an effect on vassal morale.

But if you're the size of, say, HRE you could probably afford constant crusading, couldn't you?

 

[unmerged(6777)]

But if you're the size of, say, HRE you could probably afford constant crusading, couldn't you?

No. You probably can't.

 

[Mork]

But if you're the size of, say, HRE you could probably afford constant crusading, couldn't you?

Constant Crusade?
Wait until you can convert...
Into EUII that is .
You do not have that kind of money to support an army as big as that.

 

[Ardryn]

Constant Crusade?
Wait until you can convert...
Into EUII that is .
You do not have that kind of money to support an army as big as that.

Right, after all, this is the period before standing armies were possible.You would instead make a call-to-arms, and when winter came, you would (most likely) disband them.Most rulers in this period simply didn't possess the money, or the supplies needed to feed an army throughout the winter.

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Did the Muslim's have standing army's? I read a number of history books on the period but i never saw a mention of the Muslim army's to have been standing ones or short term raised ones.However i would not be surprized if they had standing army's ,most Muslim country's in that time had way more funds or food to support such an army than the Christian's had.And the Muslim's had those deadly and well experienced horse archers ,i wonder if those were a permanent part of their army. (though afcourse it could have been nobles like the Christian knights were)

To throw it on the fun side ,i missed one part of the traditional medieval army: washing woman.
Washing woman were a part of Muslim and Christian army's in that time ,they were nessecary to wash the clothes of combatants.They followed the army's on their yourney's however not one of these washing woman were ever used by soldiers for their "pleasures" ,probably because these were all ugly woman of age 40-50.
At one point though ,and i think this was with the army's of Salladin and Richard Lionhart ,both army's managed to capture one anothers washing woman.While captured soldiers on both sides were usually killed or sold in slavery ,Richard and Salladin made a deal though to return both sides washing woman as deemed to important to letting be killed. :rofl:

 

[Gothmog]

To throw it on the fun side ,i missed one part of the traditional medieval army: washing woman.
Washing woman were a part of Muslim and Christian army's in that time ,they were nessecary to wash the clothes of combatants.They followed the army's on their yourney's however not one of these washing woman were ever used by soldiers for their "pleasures" ,probably because these were all ugly woman of age 40-50.
At one point though ,and i think this was with the army's of Salladin and Richard Lionhart ,both army's managed to capture one anothers washing woman.While captured soldiers on both sides were usually killed or sold in slavery ,Richard and Salladin made a deal though to return both sides washing woman as deemed to important to letting be killed. :rofl:

Methinks someone has been watching the Crusade series with Terry Jones...

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Did the Muslim's have standing army's? I read a number of history books on the period but i never saw a mention of the Muslim army's to have been standing ones or short term raised ones.However i would not be surprized if they had standing army's ,most Muslim country's in that time had way more funds or food to support such an army than the Christian's had.And the Muslim's had those deadly and well experienced horse archers ,i wonder if those were a permanent part of their army. (though afcourse it could have been nobles like the Christian knights were)

Unlike what many Saladin fanboys would have you believe, the moslem world wasn't lightyears ahead of christian Europe, when it came to warfare Europe was superior on many points already in 1066. And the muslems certainly weren't all incredibly rich nor did most keep permanent standing armies...

As to all "muslim's" having access to deadly well experienced horse archers you mistake a part of the muslem world (Turks and other steppe folk and the peoples they conquered/influenced) for the whole. The sedentary arabs of North Africa or Syria didn't provide light cavalry much better then their christian equivalents, not before the arrival of the Turks.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

orientalists

While I wholly and fully agree with your post, an orientalist is often in modern language defined by Edward Said in his book "Orientalism":

"Related to this academic tradition, whose fortunes, transmigrations, specializations, and transmissions are in part the subject of this study, is a more general meaning for Orientalism. Orientalism is a style of thought based upon ontological and epistemological distinction made between "the Orient" and (most of the time) "the Occident." Thus a very large mass of writers, among who are poet, novelists, philosophers, political theorists, economists, and imperial administrators, have accepted the basic distinction between East and West as the starting point for elaborate accounts concerning the Orient, its people, customs, "mind," destiny, and so on. . . . the phenomenon of Orientalism as I study it here deals principally, not with a correspondence between Orientalism and Orient, but with the internal consistency of Orientalism and its ideas about the Orient . . despite or beyond any corrsespondence, or lack thereof, with a "real" Orient. "

I tend to call the middle eastern expert who define western catholics in the middle ages as "barbarians"....simply....unread on medieval european history. Or "fanboys". Same applies to most historians of the mongol empire, apparantly...

EF

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Point taken. I was somewhat upset about the standard picture of noble, advanced and wealthy arabs meeting dirty European simpeltons being painted up and couldn't think of a better name to call 'em...

Anyhoo I changed it to "Saladin fanboys"...