Double cored provinces and mutually exclusive kingdoms

[Wilsonrtf]

I was talking to a friend some other day, and we sort of had an idea that I feel would be interesting, even if only possible through modding.

In CKI, if someone wanted to add new plausible historical kingdoms (like Occitania, Lotharingia, Western Isles, etc.), it was necessary to take away some provinces from already existing kingdoms.

The idea is that certain provinces could be marked (cored) to simultaneously belong to two (or maybe even more) kingdoms at the same time. So, for example, the southern part of France would de cored to France and to Occitania.

The king titles, however, would be mutually exclusive. I mean, if someone is already king of France, it could not create the title of king of Occitania, and vice versa. So, Occitania would only come into being if an independent or rebellious noble manages to grab enough land to form the new realm, apart from France. Of course, the french king would get claims over the whole territory, but not over the main title of king of Occitania (and this title would be impossible to grab or claim).

This way, we could have plausible titles without taking cores from other existing realms and without allowing already existing kings to create a new king title in lands that already historically belonged to their kingdoms.

What you guys think?

 

[Count Lake]

I like this idea but I don't have enough knowledge of the Clauswitz engine to tell you if its feasible or not.

 

[Nick B II]

From a game-play point of view that would be cool. There are no issues with Clausewitz here, but there may be significant technical problems with the way they're implementing it in CK2.

The problem is that historically it was impossible to create a Catholic King-level title within an existing Catholic Kingdom. The new Kingdoms were either created in non-Catholic areas, created in Catholic areas that were not de jure part of Catholic Kingdoms (Bohemia was not de jure part of the German Kingdom because it was not ethnic German), or were justified as revivals of various Visigothic era Iberian Kingdoms.

Aquitania is particularly troublesome because if it's creatable in 1066 the Dukes of Aquitane will be most of the way to owning enough land to create it, which means that a significant proportion CK2 games will have an ahistoric Kingdom of Aquitane by game-end in 1453.

So to do it you can't just do it. You have to add some mechanism by which the King of France can fight the new Kingdom of Aquitane...

Nick

 

[unmerged(109046)]

I think it would work if the formable titles can migrate or change with time. So, for example, in the 1066 start Pomerania is considered part of the Kingdom of Poland for the purposes of title creation and usurping (because it only recently went back to paganism and independence), but in 1337 start, Poland should lose its "cores" in there - because for centuries now Poland had nothing to do with the territory.
In this way, kingdom of Aquitaine would be formable if duke of Aquitaine managed to hold his independence for long enough and had relations good enough with the pope to assure creating the new title, which would get its core on the territory then (or just make it an event that requires independence, holding certain lands vassalised and good relations with the pope). This could also work with the crusader kingdoms - some of which made not much sense in CK1, like Kingdom of North Africa or Basra.

 

[Ruwaard]

From a game-play point of view that would be cool. There are no issues with Clausewitz here, but there may be significant technical problems with the way they're implementing it in CK2.

The problem is that historically it was impossible to create a Catholic King-level title within an existing Catholic Kingdom. The new Kingdoms were either created in non-Catholic areas, created in Catholic areas that were not de jure part of Catholic Kingdoms (Bohemia was not de jure part of the German Kingdom because it was not ethnic German), or were justified as revivals of various Visigothic era Iberian Kingdoms.

Aquitania is particularly troublesome because if it's creatable in 1066 the Dukes of Aquitane will be most of the way to owning enough land to create it, which means that a significant proportion CK2 games will have an ahistoric Kingdom of Aquitane by game-end in 1453.

So to do it you can't just do it. You have to add some mechanism by which the King of France can fight the new Kingdom of Aquitane...

Nick

The position of Bohemia was rather special, because as a duchy it was a de facto part of the kingdom, but it's this position that also made their electorate somewhat controversial since Bohemia wasn't ethnic German.
On a more general note the Pope and the emperor (Holy Roman emperor and Eastern Roman emperor) could promote a sovereign ruler or even one of their vassals to a king. In a way Bohemia is an example of this, because even as a kingdom Bohemia remained a part of the empire; and even with the failed negotiations between the Holy Roman emperor and other imperial vassals that was a condition. Another grant by the emperor was the kingdom of Cyprus.
The Pope also created and recognized new kingdoms on the condition that they would become (nominal) papal vassals, examples of this were Portugal and Sicily.
In any case papal and imperial recognition (as well recognition by their new peers) will be needed to allow for a promotion, especially a controversial one.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

From a game-play point of view that would be cool. There are no issues with Clausewitz here, but there may be significant technical problems with the way they're implementing it in CK2.

The problem is that historically it was impossible to create a Catholic King-level title within an existing Catholic Kingdom. The new Kingdoms were either created in non-Catholic areas, created in Catholic areas that were not de jure part of Catholic Kingdoms (Bohemia was not de jure part of the German Kingdom because it was not ethnic German), or were justified as revivals of various Visigothic era Iberian Kingdoms.

Aquitania is particularly troublesome because if it's creatable in 1066 the Dukes of Aquitane will be most of the way to owning enough land to create it, which means that a significant proportion CK2 games will have an ahistoric Kingdom of Aquitane by game-end in 1453.

So to do it you can't just do it. You have to add some mechanism by which the King of France can fight the new Kingdom of Aquitane...

Nick

I agree that from an historical viewpoint, each possible kingdom would have to be thought of and discussed, and, maybe, it would be better if the vanilla CKII left those kingdoms alone. But this mechanic, or, the possibility to use it, would be very interesting for mods and alternate scenarios.

Maybe there could be more conditions to form those realms beyond simple owning the land - papal aproval, perhaps, or the existence of a powerful heresy?

 

[RedRooster81]

Interesting ideas, guys. If the kingdoms are tied to the map files like in CK1, it could be hard or impossible to move say Pomerania from Poland to another kingdom de jure. As a matter of vassalage, the Duke of Pomerania could surely give the HRE his allegiance and abandon Poland.

Another thing I would say, regarding Aquitania or Occitania as a separate kingdom. It is a troublesome region to model. Aquitaine, Toulouse, and at times Provence were rather loosely tied to their nominal lieges. Aquitaine-Poitou-Gascony (really a personal union I would say) could have a particular kind of vassalage to the King of France, much looser than say Champagne or Orleans. I think that to be historical he would still owed fealty to Paris, almost as much as the Norman kings of England owed fealty for Normandy. Gascony was until 1032 part of the Kingdom of Navarra (or Pamplona, its older name). So let's put it this way, the Duke of Aquitaine could name himself King of Occitania, but he could also owe fealty for his northern lands to Paris and his southern lands to Pamplona. Just a suggestion.

Overall, though, I think creating a new kingdom (not under an empire that is) would be an act of defiance, because you are taking territory for which men owe fealty to a certain king, declaring that it is an independent entity ("no one south of the Loire and west of the Rhone shall bow to the King of France, but to me instead"). I've given some rambling thoughts on Aquitaine. The same could go easily for Lotharingia, where you would be taking vassals away from the HRE (unless the emperor agrees and you are now his uber-vassal in the Low Countries and Lorraine).

Nick's point about new or revived kingdoms is right on the money. You're saying in Iberia's case that three centuries ago the Muslims took Christian lands, now I have reconquered and by right of conquest I am rightful king of Valencia, or Andalucia, or whatever. The same for other areas formerly Christian (whether Visigothic, Roman, or whatever) and areas not, like Persia. I think that if you are in the HRE, you should need the emperor's approval to claim a new title, and in general, your liege's approval for claiming a new title if he does not create it and give it himself. So if you control three counties in southeastern England, you should not be able to proclaim yourself Duke of Sussex without the king's approval. Something similar has been implemented for upgrading titles in a few EU3 mods to good effect.

I'm a bit nervous about getting Papal approval for new kingdoms. This messes around with the whole universal power of the papacy idea. It should be possible, even having your character travel to Rome to pay homage, but it should not be horribly necessary if you are say the King of Portugal, because if you go for it then you should get a certain country flag reflecting your submission to the Pope. At the same time there should be some good benefits, so it depends on your play style and what matters to you. Like Doomdark has said, gameplay should be about choices. You might end up being ostracized if you do not but get to stand more on your own feet, but if you do you have to institute papal investiture but you can get crusades called against your Muslim or pagan neighbors and maybe some other sources of revenue or soldiers, er crusaders, or other bonuses.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

Maybe the papal approval requisite could be overruled by huge amounts of prestige, or extremely good relation with the new realm´s nobility. This could also be dependant upon the current level of church authority at the time (so, a weak church would have much less power to "forbid" a new kingdom).

 

[Ruwaard]

In game terms modeling this could be hard, but at least IRL the Papal recognition and acceptance as the king of Portugal as a vassal of the papacy was vital for the recognition of the first king of Portugal including the recognition of the neighboring countries, since he previously had been the vassal of the king of León and Castille. Obviously this homage would have been done by representatives and would become more formal over time or a formality even.

So in game terms IMO it could be a requirement for the first new king or the noble who wants to be promoted to royal rank to get approval of the Papacy or the emperor; however once there is a new king, then the Papacy, as formal liege (of the kingdom), could only be really involved once there is a succession crisis. And even in those cases (although it could take a while) they often had to accept the outcome.

 

[RedRooster81]

In game terms modeling this could be hard, but at least IRL the Papal recognition and acceptance as the king of Portugal as a vassal of the papacy was vital for the recognition of the first king of Portugal including the recognition of the neighboring countries, since he previously had been the vassal of the king of León and Castille. Obviously this homage would have been done by representatives and would become more formal over time or a formality even.

So in game terms IMO it could be a requirement for the first new king or the noble who wants to be promoted to royal rank to get approval of the Papacy or the emperor; however once there is a new king, then the Papacy, as formal liege (of the kingdom), could only be really involved once there is a succession crisis. And even in those cases (although it could take a while) they often had to accept the outcome.

In Portugal's case, as I recall, it was a matter taken up after the fact. Portugal had secured its borders, but there could still be future difficulties with Leon, from which Afonso I had declared independence. This papal recognition also helped with the future Luso-Castilian conflict over North Africa, the Atlantic islands (especially the Canaries), and ultimately the Treaty of Tordesillas. So in game terms it could force Christian neighbors to retract their claims on your kingdom, on pains of excommunication perhaps. In an age in which not having a liege posed a certain (or critical) danger, you had to make choices, especially if you were small or weak. Faced with Castilla-Leon, Aragon and Portugal turned to Rome for protection. Seeking imperial or papal recognition is the equivalent of "diplomatic recognition" in the XIX and XX centuries. You need some great power or authority to put its stamp of approval on your claims.

Maybe there could be national modifiers (thinking of EU3 here) for papal or imperial approval. ("Guelph" I suppose, with +piety or something.) And there should be some mechanism for controlling a certain kingdom without this kind of recognition. So, England controlled Ireland from Angevin times without gaining the dignity of calling Ireland a subsidiary kingdom.

Wilson, the "moral authority" variable could bring some good results. Seeking papal or ERE approval for your title (whether the Duke of Apulia wants the title King of Sicily or the Grand Prince of Muscovy wants the title King of All Russia) should raise moral authority, because you are recognizing (at least on a symbolic level) that the Patriarch or Pope is deserving of you as a vassal (again at least symbolically). Oaths of fealty should prop up both liege and vassal.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

So, I now can see the pope supporting Occitania because the french king has an antipope of his own ...

 

[RedRooster81]

So, I now can see the pope supporting Occitania because the french king has an antipope of his own ...

Why not? Shouldn't there be events like these? I guess it depends too what the Antipope means in the end, what his role and possibilities are.

Now my own scenario (and it could happen in CK2). The King of France is a gnostic heretic, and the Count of Toulouse is given his own kingdom, where he rallies the faithful. A crusader army of Occitains, Basques, and Gascons then gathers at Limoges and marches on Paris under the Visigothic cross.

 

[Wilsonrtf]

If CK II can handle this kind of event (even if only through modding), it will be completely amazing.