Increasing central authority is represented already by increasing base demesne size as the game progresses.
-
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.
So there were some complaints that there wasn't anything to represent increasing centralization in the game.
Not from me there weren't...I was just saying that England's 'autocracy' was being pushed by a King who was seeking to have a huge amount of personal control. Far from Duchy tiers not existing in England, it was quite the opposite - there were a good many powerful landowners under the pre-Angevin kings who wielded considerable military and political influence. Enough to bias the order of succession almost every single time. 
Increasing centralisation / stability is an entirely different issue. CK doesn't model it as well as perhaps it might...centralisation is represented fine (or, at least, the potential for greater centralisation / wider control), but realm stability is grossly under-represented.
Increasing centralisation / stability is an entirely different issue. CK doesn't model it as well as perhaps it might...centralisation is represented fine (or, at least, the potential for greater centralisation / wider control), but realm stability is grossly under-represented.
Woz Early said:Not from me there weren't...I was just saying that England's 'autocracy' was being pushed by a King who was seeking to have a huge amount of personal control. Far from Duchy tiers not existing in England, it was quite the opposite - there were a good many powerful landowners under the pre-Angevin kings who wielded considerable military and political influence. Enough to bias the order of succession almost every single time.
Increasing centralisation / stability is an entirely different issue. CK doesn't model it as well as perhaps it might...centralisation is represented fine (or, at least, the potential for greater centralisation / wider control), but realm stability is grossly under-represented.
Yeah, I'm not quite sure you understand what a Duke is. A duke is not a "powerful landowner," he is a sub-king, a largely automous military leader (which is what dux orignially meant) representing a culturally distinctive community with a nominal allegiance to a King, and nothing more unless the King regularly visits him with an army.
Finellach said:@Wheels - your "neutral observtion" is anything but neutral.
look, except where it helps make CK more historically accurate, I couldn't care less what duchy gotland is lumped under. I have no plans on playing a scandinavian dynasty. It simply seemed to me that as someone who came into the debate with neutral feelings at the outset that Styrbiorn has presented a factual case, whilst you have mastered the art of being monumentally dense and an utter tool. Mazel tov on that.
I am sorry if the course of the discussion has led me to a conclusion that was unfavorable to your asinine claims. Perhaps next time you may want to consider including some evidence that isn't totally anachronistic.
Wheels said:
And that is your and only your personal assertion. Styrbion failed to provide any evidence of Gotland being a duchy tier title and that was my point. He also claimed Gotland was never associated with Gotaland when the very link to the site he posted here in this very thread refutes him. Not to mention he deliberately and selectively choose what he wanted to read and undersand from my posts which was really not in the manner of decent and respectful debate.
This matter is over for me, I suggest you make it over for yourself as well as Byakhiam suggested.
It could have been a response to either of us, I think.
As for sweeping generalisations, I'd prefer it if you kept them to yourself. A Duke is almost certainly a powerful landowner *in addition* to whatever other feudal powers and responsibilities that he may have. Calling him a sub-King might be accurate in some historical cases, but certainly not all. Again, representing a culturally distinctive community is purely dependent on the region or reason for the title being held.
If you take saxon England at about 1066, then the Earldom titles fit nicely with what you're describing, IMO. Northumbria, what had just become Mercia again, Wessex and a few scattered smaller pieces of Essex / East Anglia. The earls of Mercia and Northumbria chose not to march their armies south to fight at the battle of Hastings - so yes, they did display a markedly great degree of independence from their King. They were highly autonomous military and civil rulers - in all honesty, England as a single kingdom hadn't really existed for all that long, so this was hardly surprising.
In the wake of the Norman conquest, the power structure in England changed. The formerly huge Earldoms were dramatically broken down, but not as far as the stage where you had 30 or so counties all answerable directly and only to the King.
The 'Dukes' appointed in England at this particular point of change are confusingly Earls more than half of the time, such as in Norfolk, but the title Duke appears constantly by about a hundred years later. Push forwards to the Hundred Years War and there are Duke titles all over England, whose holders are high-up in the feudal tier (only one step below the King) and are responsible primarily for the overall military provision of their sphere of influence, and for its taxation.
Far from being sub-Kings who were virtually independent, these Duchies were instead a high-step in the feudal tier. The allegiance to the King was far from nominal - it was expected, and often fairly regluarly exercised. Plus, given their numbers, it was no longer possible for a single Duke to realistically challenge or declare war against the King without the support of a significant number of his peers.
I think that the kind of Dukes that you're referring to are something like the electors in Germany, who were dramatically independent of the Emperor at times, and often held culturally distinctive lands...but applying that model to England would be false. The King very rarely had to visit his vassals with an army, except where the order of succession was in dispute - and in that case, it was generally two separate Kings (or Queens) with their respective supporters visiting each other with armies.
As for sweeping generalisations, I'd prefer it if you kept them to yourself. A Duke is almost certainly a powerful landowner *in addition* to whatever other feudal powers and responsibilities that he may have. Calling him a sub-King might be accurate in some historical cases, but certainly not all. Again, representing a culturally distinctive community is purely dependent on the region or reason for the title being held.
If you take saxon England at about 1066, then the Earldom titles fit nicely with what you're describing, IMO. Northumbria, what had just become Mercia again, Wessex and a few scattered smaller pieces of Essex / East Anglia. The earls of Mercia and Northumbria chose not to march their armies south to fight at the battle of Hastings - so yes, they did display a markedly great degree of independence from their King. They were highly autonomous military and civil rulers - in all honesty, England as a single kingdom hadn't really existed for all that long, so this was hardly surprising.
In the wake of the Norman conquest, the power structure in England changed. The formerly huge Earldoms were dramatically broken down, but not as far as the stage where you had 30 or so counties all answerable directly and only to the King.
The 'Dukes' appointed in England at this particular point of change are confusingly Earls more than half of the time, such as in Norfolk, but the title Duke appears constantly by about a hundred years later. Push forwards to the Hundred Years War and there are Duke titles all over England, whose holders are high-up in the feudal tier (only one step below the King) and are responsible primarily for the overall military provision of their sphere of influence, and for its taxation.
Far from being sub-Kings who were virtually independent, these Duchies were instead a high-step in the feudal tier. The allegiance to the King was far from nominal - it was expected, and often fairly regluarly exercised. Plus, given their numbers, it was no longer possible for a single Duke to realistically challenge or declare war against the King without the support of a significant number of his peers.
I think that the kind of Dukes that you're referring to are something like the electors in Germany, who were dramatically independent of the Emperor at times, and often held culturally distinctive lands...but applying that model to England would be false. The King very rarely had to visit his vassals with an army, except where the order of succession was in dispute - and in that case, it was generally two separate Kings (or Queens) with their respective supporters visiting each other with armies.
Finellach said:
Correct. And you've posted no compelling reason why Gotland shouldn't be one of those "entites" that is represented by a duchy within CK. Nor do I see anything that suggests it should be part of any other Swedish duchy within the game, though I have no reason to object if it is so portrayed.
If all one-province duchies are to be eliminated from the game (something I am also not particularly convinced is absolutely necessary), then obviously we can't continue to show Gotland as a one-province duchy. That would leave 3 possible solutions:
1) add another county(s) to Duchy of Gotland (obviously one or more of the other Baltic islands would be the most reasonable candidates),
2) add County of Gotland to another Swedish duchy, or
3) make Gotland a NONE,NONE county.
I guess I would prefer the 3rd option--the other two just don't seem correct--but again I don't necessarily feel the current set-up needs changed.
We could also make it a no-duchy Swedish county (it should be Swedish by default, according to the outcome of another thread I started on Gotland's default realm belonging).DPS said:
That would work. If Gotland is a default part of any Kingdom, it definately should be Sweden. I read that other thread too.
DPS said:
The point is there is no compelling reason why no other county in Sweden should not be a duch as well, thats what I am saying. I don't know which criteria they used when they decided to make it a duchy but it seems wrong to me...of course people are free to think otherwise, but then I should be allowed to have an opinon as well.
The problem is not in Gotland being a one-province duchy...at least that not a major problem, but in the fact IMO Gotland should not be a duchy tier. As for it being in some other duchy demense is ahistorical well thats not something we can fix....there are counties as well that have suffered such fate so why would Gotland be any different is a mystery to me. The problem is that the game is made by the Frankish/Norman tier setup....partial as we lack some titles which cannot be applied for whole Europe...at least no in such fashion everyone agrees.
I don't mind it being a 1 province country with no duchy. Actually i think all those 1-province duchies that Byakhiam said they aren't going to make atleast 2-province duchies should be made 1-province counties with no dhchies for game-balancing reasons, though as said in reality some could be expanded/merged/absorbed, but obviously Byakhiam and others don't want to do that for 1.05 atleast.
In an ideal situation, every county should have a natural duchy to be a part of. In a sense, the duchy map can be viewed as a representation of how a King could divide all the lands in anywhere into more manageable duchies (and be fairly historical about it).
If the only reason against 1-province Duchies is game-balancing, that's fair enough, I'm sure we can all put up with a tiny bit of historical inaccuracy to solve that (provided its not a glaringly terrible inaccuracy). I don't think we should have random counties that do not belong to a duchy tier. It makes sense for Kingdom level provinces, but not the lower levels.
If the only reason against 1-province Duchies is game-balancing, that's fair enough, I'm sure we can all put up with a tiny bit of historical inaccuracy to solve that (provided its not a glaringly terrible inaccuracy). I don't think we should have random counties that do not belong to a duchy tier. It makes sense for Kingdom level provinces, but not the lower levels.
Finellach said:
I really should know better than bringing this up again, but I can't let this be, so here goes. First, I never claimed Gotland was a duch, and as for if it deserves to be a duchy, that's a matter of interpretation. Secondly, I never claimed Gotland has never been associated with Götaland. What I did claim was that there was no association during the CK time frame, which indeed is supported by my links.
In the Swedish and German versions of this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6taland (<- the map here is light green=Medieval Götaland, dark green=later additions)
..namely these:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Götaland
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6taland
...it is clearly stated that the medieval Götaland did not include Gotland (translations):
German version said:
Swedish version said:
Also, the Nordic faq, which I also linked, has this part:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/nordic-faq/part7_SWEDEN/
Well if you never claimed those things then it seems we are both right....how convenient... :rofl:
:rofl: