Maybe its just me, but wouldint it make more sense to have a celtic empire, with Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and Brittany as the requirements, and the why would Finland be part of the de-jure empire of the Scandinavian empire, that is largely based on Sweden taking over the area later on. Why are they based on modern ties, rather than historical ties, I would bet that if a Finn converted to christianity and managed to take control of the whole area there would be a " Uralic" empire, with the baltic countries, northern Russia, and Finland being the de-jure areas. I know it is probably for gameplay reasons, but still, I think it would be a lot more fun to have it based on historical relations, rather than modern ones
Does anybody else feel that the New Empires are historically inaccurate?
- Thread starter Connor Mulhern
- Start date
-
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.
Yes, very much so.
In making Empires really easy to get they take away from the specialness of owning one. An empire is meant to be an entity of great importance, not just a few large kingdoms put together. It makes a lot of sense to have one be the descendent of charlemagne and the other the last vestige of the roman empire (in terms of christian empires). In SOI they changed this however and now it's just meaningless.
Hence why I modded all the new empires out in my mod (and I also removed/reduced the number of historically unlikely and too small kingdoms)
In making Empires really easy to get they take away from the specialness of owning one. An empire is meant to be an entity of great importance, not just a few large kingdoms put together. It makes a lot of sense to have one be the descendent of charlemagne and the other the last vestige of the roman empire (in terms of christian empires). In SOI they changed this however and now it's just meaningless.
Hence why I modded all the new empires out in my mod (and I also removed/reduced the number of historically unlikely and too small kingdoms)
I'd have done things differently, but Paradox are aiming for gameplay over accuracy (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) -- for example letting powerful kings form empires without having to conquer or usurp either of the Roman empires.
They're all ahistorical. A "Celtic Empire" is just as ahistorical as a Brittanic one.
But people were very keen on adding Empires, it was one of the most popular features added in mods, so here they are.
But people were very keen on adding Empires, it was one of the most popular features added in mods, so here they are.
It's for those who want something bigger higher after they manage to put themself king.
If you don't want them, don't use them. The AI will never be big enough to create one anyway.
If you don't want them, don't use them. The AI will never be big enough to create one anyway.
But would it not make more sense for a united cultural empire rather than just drawing random lines?
Calling it a lack of accuracy is odd. Can empires not be formed out of nothing? Did the Roman Empire conquer and usurp some other empire I'm not aware of before it could be called an empire? And how did one empire split into two empires, if the only way to become an empire is to take over one that already existed?
Well the concept of empire back then had nothing to do with the concept of nationalism or uniting one culture under a banner so no not really.
"United" Roman Empire is the only missing one to me. And why ? since paradox isn't so in fond of historical accuracy anyway. It's paradoxal ;D
The OP's complaint wasn't that the new empires are ahistorical but that they are not rooted in history. Ahistorical means "this could have possibly happened but didn't" not "this isn't based on the historical background".
It would have made sense to add the ability to create a titular empire when you have four kingdom titles. Then after 100 years of de jure drift you would have a real empire, entirely justifiable by your alternate history.
Historical strictly means : It happened. Ahistorical strictly means : It didn't happen, and it was impossible to happen near this period of History. (Source = multiple definitions easily found online)
I think in one of the Dev Diaries they said 'these empires arent historically accurate but they are for the gameplay' or something to that effect.
I think that the Britannic Empire is a perfectly sound idea. It is historical to some extent, furthermore it was the ultimate goal of pretty much all invaders.
Yes, but considering de-jure cannot overlap, it would make more sense to base it on culture. Besides, it was more of a pan-cultural movement, not a nationalist idea
Of course! They are almost pure fantasy.
Now before I get flamed: THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL WRONG WITH BEING ABLE TO CREATE/FORM THEM (E.G. CALL YOURSELF THE EMPEROR OF ALL SPAIN, TOTIUS HISPANNIAE ETC.)
I AM USING CAPS HERE BECAUSE PEOPLE INSIST ON MISREADING MY WORDS WHENEVER WE DISCUSS THIS SUBJECT.
So basically due to this ample disclaimer, you cannot say that I oppose the existence or creatability of such empires. Thank you for your cooperation and for not twisting my words. If you don't cooperate, my Spymaster and his friends will be visiting you in your house at night hours in the ordinary course of business (you will need to wait your time after the 1000 other guys).
What's a problem is that those Empires exist de iure on the map in supposedly historical start dates.
Which makes totally no sense for a game that insists on meticulously representing people's genealogies, borders, claims, province cultures, power relationships (title tier, number of holdings in a province etc.).
Basically, an Empire of Francia existing de iure in 1066 is blatant fantasy.
As far as I see, the ground was prepared by the Kingdoms of Pomerania, Bavaria and Frisia, which stretched history. And then the new Empires crossed the line into historical fantasy (no, not dragons or elves but an already alternative history even at the starting point).
Basically, beginning with Patch 1.06 Crusader Kings 2 is a game set in an alternative history version of 1066 Europe, in which some people had created, consolidated, justified and otherwise made legal or customary ("of right") the existence of a bunch of empires, which are, from the point of view of customs and law (as opposed to the everyday reality of current political powers) as good as the HRE or the ERE to Europeans of 1066. Which means a ton of things must have happened prior to 1066.
I am all in favour of introducing the ability to take away the HRE from the Kings of Germany. Or to get oneself elected into the Germany-based HRE as a king of Castille (has happened) or English prince (has happened). Or claim imperial legacy (there are dynasties with imperial blood and claims, some going as far back as claiming roots in the House of Constantine, i.e. Welsh dynasties). And strong kings could perhaps create titular empires (even with a custom name when played by a human, that'd be a name of his choosing, like when naming a child) or convert the rank of their primary title or even create a new entirely de iure empire... perhaps. Anything, any stretch of imagination, other than de iure empires already existing on the de iure map of Europe in 1066 or any starting date.
I suggest we submit a petition to PI.
Notwithstanding population density, the entire area of the British Isles is less than that of modern Poland. Let alone mediaeval Hungary. Which are kingdoms.
Just because you have plenty of king-tier titles in a small area doesn't mean that a uniter of them would need to be emperor.
Spain is a bit complicated because the area is much larger and there had actually been guys (at least one) claiming to be emperors on account of their kingship being superior to other kingships from the area. The Pope generally respected the title and told the HRE to go away with its lawsuits. Still a very exotic claim to the imperial title, and the use of it was primarily intended to assert supremacy within Spain, not to try and be superior (higher rank) to the kings of other countries in Europe, as far as I know.
This said, I'd make an exception and play Wales to get that empire in place because from a Welsh perspective it came close to making sense. Welsh dynasties believed themselves to be descended from Constantine (the Roman one, first officially Christian emperor).
Otherwise, what the game needs is not fantasy empires but the ability to unite kingdoms, so that you could be the High King of Britain, above the kings of Powys, Dyfedd, East Anglia, Alba, the Isles, Ulster, Connacht and 20 others. But you would be equal in rank, essencially, to the king of Hungary or some other king of a big kingdom, you'd only have more prestige as being the kind of king that has other kings under himself (which was not outside the reach of major non-imperial kings). NOT empires to cluster tiny kingdoms together.
(And the ability to enjoy a Russian Empire in the middle ages, with a proper imperial title etc., would be something I'd expect from an unofficial modification, more or less on par with other 16th-18th century transplants.)
The formation itself of those empires, basically the fact that somebody creates and uses that title, would not be ahistorical. We have some examples of people having a go at it.
But what is ahistorical (in the sense that it didn't happen) is the de iure quality of those empires, their existence on the de iure map of 1066 Europe (or any historical Europe).
The 'de iure' map represents the law, customs and mentality of Europeans upon that date with a blend of modern perceptions and evaluations (and general categorisation and ordering) of history. It's basically a reconstructed circumstance that affects your game from before first unpausing. And it didn't happen, it never had, not in that degree, not to that extent. Not to the extent of a Russian Empire sitting on the de iure map in 1066. This is the ahistorical part of them.
Just because nobody actually formed a Russian Empire during the middle ages is not a historically sound reason to prevent it in the game. This because the game reconstructs a historical start and leaves the players, both the humans and the AI, with options. They can and will make a different Europe from the one that actually was in 1453, because they will have made different decisions between 1066 and 1435 than the characters in our recorded history did. But what is ahistorical is when the starting reconstruction is false or when the options are way out of touch with anything anybody could do. Of which two the former is worse than the latter. Exaggerated options for expansion aren't that bad in a game. But fantasy introduced for balance/"gameplay" reasons into a historical game is wrong. Make a fantasy game instead, or a fantasy map, fantasy start. For example a gameplay optimised map recommended for beginners, casual players, for multiplayer balance (equality of chances), for people who like it that way. Or make it default but leave us old fans our historically accurate (more or less, sometimess less) map.
To me, it's basically a U-turn in the EU/CK tradition, going back on whatever was the original raison d'etre and unique proposition of the series. It goes against the game's nature. It almost feels like somebody new came in and rearranged the house (in this case, took the policy in a radically new direction).
You could plausibly have united the HRE and the ERE under one person via marriage.
Historically, there was a bit of a "one empire" policy, a bit like the modern "one China" policy, whereby the PRC prefers a Taiwan claiming to be the rightful government of all China over a Taiwan claiming to be an independent country.
Just who should rule it, who was the better, more legitimate emperor was the problem. Mutual recognition or recognition by others was a bit sketchy. Catholics tended to favour the HRE normally, while referring to the ERE emperor as the 'Emperor of Constantinople' as a rule.
At any rate, you could then divide the empire among sons, possibly having a superior inferior and a subordinate one. This isn't really reflected in the game because it wasn't the way things were normally done in the empires (not to such a clear extent).
Plus, the entire former Roman Empire, in fact, sometimes even adjacent lands as far as somebody Christian ruled them, were considered to be the continued Roman Empire, regardless of the claims of kings to be free from subjection to the emperor (while maybe conceding that the claims weren't totally unfounded and settling matters diplomatically, maybe conceding some primacy of honour and some loose, theoretical, maybe even spiritual (in a secular tradition sense) suzerainty. This is another reason why there shouldn't really be non-Roman de iure empires in Europe. I repeat: de iure. Creatable is one thing, de iure is another. Creatable is not a big problem (not one I'd waste time ranting about), de iure is.
Last edited:
I don't get the de jure problem. You can't just form the empires in 1066, right? So what's the big deal?
Maybe have a 5 kingdom count for the ability to form titular empires?
The fact that there was NEVER any legal claim to them, de jure means by law, and the closest thing would be the imperial provinces, but there was no real way to justify that you were the successor to that province
It just looks wrong starting the game off in 1066 and finding de jure Empires where none should exsist, breaks the immersion a bit.
I took one look at them and removed all of them apart from Russia and Persia; mostly the latter to hopefully help challenge the ERE
I think any king who managed to unite 5 large kingdoms in the middle ages (e.g. France plus Castille plus Poland plus Bohemia plus Hungary) would be associated in the imperial dignity by the HRE, especially if things remained that way for a couple of generations, he would be tapped into the Roman thing by the Pope and the HRE. Just a guess, obviously, but I think that's how it would have gone.
On the other hand, it would still be difficult. As of the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg, the King of Poland was the overlord of entire Lithuania (via a brother, who was subject to him), Kievian Rus (again), Novgorod (whose ruling prince was his brother, and bent knee as a vassal)... heck, in fact, more Rus than the Muscovite princes (the border ran like 100 kilometres from Moscow). His son didn't get Lithuania but could perhaps claim some kind of suzerainty over his younger brother who got it. And then he was elected King of Hungary (died at Varna in 1444). None of these guys became emperors.
The English Edwards after asserting overlordship over Wales (conquest/vassalage), Scotland (forced vassalage, largely by diplomacy but also by force) and Ireland (disputed papal bull plus conquest) didn't succeed at becoming the same tier with the Kaiser or the Basileus.
Charles the Fat of France (link) became emperor but he was basically the Western Emperor (the post-Charlemagne prototype of the HRE), and the German King (East Francia if you prefer) was not at the time.
Yeah.