Duchy setup

[unmerged(83459)]

I have just played the king of England to get rid of the Moroccons in Wales. In a few months it was all done. That was actually far too easy! I guess the conquest of Wales from infidels is much easier than from the original kingdom of Wales. So that’s another lost challenge in the game. But maybe I’d give the kingdom of Wales away, so England can try it again on another occasion. Now I’ve sent my armies north to throw the Emirate of Jerusalem out of Scotland. But I think I can leave that to the ai.

It seems though a much harder task to give the kingdom of England a well organized shape like I did with Naples and Byzantium. I already didn’t succeed with this intent in the case of Hungary and Austria. It just takes time and opportunity to get the demesnes you want for yourself and the crown prince.

One of the difficulties in England is that there is no duchy of Wales. I actually didn’t think I’d find so many faults and questionable denominations even in a well known country like England. As a start I don’t think it is right to put London in the county of Essex since both London and Westminster were on the corner between the counties of Essex, Surrey and Kent. London (Westminster) thus might have a province of its own. In any case the capital of England in 1066 was yet for another 100 years to come the city of Winchester in Hampshire, but I can understand that you didn’t represent this in the game.
Other questionable decisions:
The counties of Norfolk and Suffolk form the duchy of East Anglia and not Norfolk. Hampshire and Dorset formed the county of Wessex (which might include even Salisbury, in this case Surrey would be assigned to Sussex). Essex was also a duchy that might include counties of Essex, Bedford (and London). Lancaster is maybe too big with four counties. Derby, Leicester and Shrewsbury should form the duchy of Mercia instead. Northumberland and Cumberland should form the duchy of Northumbria. At least in 1066 these were the important duchies in England.
But most of all I miss the duchy or principality (if possible the latter denomination would be better) of Wales. Wales has two duchies which don’t really have sense. There should be just one duchy, the duchy of Wales.. To distinguish it from the kingdom of Wales, the latter might include some more provinces like Hereford or the Isle of Man. An alternative would be to keep Deheubarth as it is and rename Gwynedd to Wales.
I haven’t checked the single counties in Wales and neither Scotland. Ireland seems to be okay.
But I have seen that there are several questionable decisions even in France. What is the duchy of Bordeaux? That was Aquitaine (Guyenne) and Gascogne in the southwest! Instead you put the duchies of Bordeaux, Armagnac, Toulouse and Poitou on the map, which were important counties, but as far as I know have never been duchies (at lest in medieval times).

P.S.
I have just checked my critical annotations with the new duchy setup for Deus Vult and I have found that some of the unhistorical situations have been corrected. At least Aquitaine and Gascogne are on the map now. Sussex has become Canterbury which is okay for the later scenarios. Wales however is still the same. Other new entries are even more questionable like the duchy of Somerset replacing Wessex. The 1st duke of Somerset was created only in 1448, that is when most of the game is over. So I wonder why it took the developers more than three years (and “long struggles in S&M”) to correct these issues?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

One of the difficulties in England is that there is no duchy of Wales

Why is this a problem in England ? since Wales isn't in England

The counties of Norfolk and Suffolk form the duchy of East Anglia and not Norfolk.

Please give us some information about this duchy of East Anglia, there only was an East Anglia kingdom and Earldom before CKI. But I can find information about the Earldom of Norfolf in the CK-timeframe

duchy of Mercia

Again when in the CK timeframe was there a duchy of Mercia, it was an Anglo-Saxon kingdom/earldom, before CK started. Remember that the names of duchies can't be changed for the different scenarios, they are all taken from one file, so in 1187 and 1335 a duchy of Mercia makes even less sense then a duchy of Mercia in 1066.

Wales has two duchies which don’t really have sense

And why don't they make sense ?

Other new entries are even more questionable like the duchy of Somerset replacing Wessex

And when in the CK timeframe was there a duchy of Wessex ?

Toulouse and Poitou on the map, which were important counties, but as far as I know have never been duchies

The game has only 3 tiers (king, duke, count) these counties were important counties certainly counties of a 'duchy-level', just as Flanders, Champagne, Provence, Savoie, Barcelona and others. These counties were also never duchies, but the power these counts had makes them 'dukes' in CK.

So I wonder why it took the developers more than three years (and “long struggles in S&M”) to correct these issues?

The developers din't 'correct' anything, the new duchy and kingdom set-up is made by players. Paradox itself was pleased with the original set-up.

If you think that things are wrong, then come up with sources and evidence that this is the case, instead of making just statements.

Or just mod it to your own liking (like I have done myself).

 

[ssj18vegeta]

Please give us some information about this duchy of East Anglia, there only was an East Anglia kingdom and Earldom before CKI.

Is this a silent hint to say there's gonna be a CKII? :rofl:

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Is this a silent hint to say there's gonna be a CKII? :rofl:

No, it is a silent hint that I made a typo

(or 'the wish is the father of the thought', which probably makes no sense in English but in Dutch you know what I mean )

 

[Beauclerc]

Totally support Veldmaarschalk's response.

The division of land in England and the titles were not clear cut in 1066. The Kingdoms/Earldoms of Wessex and Mercia were laid to rest by William the Conqueror himself (due to their links with the powerful kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxons) and was replaced by the shire system already established by the Anglo-Saxons.

England did not have dukes, it had Earls. There is no clear match between Earldoms and Duchies. An Earl could be equivalent to a Duke or a Count - but for the most part they were equivalent to Counts in terms of what the title represented (Earl of Warwick for example) and the title didn't necessarily match the land they held (which could be scattered throughout England and Normandy).

Anyway, the set up as it is fine. Would be great to have Earls in England and Scotland and Princes in Wales, but it's not a huge issue.

 

[unmerged(83459)]

Why is this a problem in England ? since Wales isn't in England


Please give us some information about this duchy of East Anglia, there only was an East Anglia kingdom and Earldom before CKI. But I can find information about the Earldom of Norfolf in the CK-timeframe


Again when in the CK timeframe was there a duchy of Mercia, it was an Anglo-Saxon kingdom/earldom, before CK started. Remember that the names of duchies can't be changed for the different scenarios, they are all taken from one file, so in 1187 and 1335 a duchy of Mercia makes even less sense then a duchy of Mercia in 1066.


And when in the CK timeframe was there a duchy of Wessex ?


The game has only 3 tiers (king, duke, count) these counties were important counties certainly counties of a 'duchy-level', just as Flanders, Champagne, Provence, Savoie, Barcelona and others. These counties were also never duchies, but the power these counts had makes them 'dukes' in CK.

If you think that things are wrong, then come up with sources and evidence that this is the case, instead of making just statements.

That's not too hard to do. I don't pretend to be always right, I just like starting a discussion. And here you can discuss a lot of decisions.

I admit that the Saxon system of earldoms ended in 1066, but the Saxon earls were more or less correspondent to the later dukes and they governed even bigger areas. For centuries to go those regions continued to be called by their Saxon names. In absence of a correspondent duchy I therefore propose to take the Saxon name. You may disagree and prefer the current choices, but I'll show you that they aren't better documented than my proposals.

The English system of duchies developed only much later and in a very incongruent way. The creation of dukes depended on the number of sons and brothers of the king, on the necessity to grant a title to other loyal followers and on the availability of titles and lands.

So why do I need a Principality of Wales? If you want to create a system of succession in your kingdom, then you should first define your demesnes (best if central and the richest in the whole kingdom) and find an adequate duchy for your crown prince (with the second richest demesnes and preferably at a medium distance from your own center of power towards the other end of the kingdom). Thus at the moment of succession the new king has a really vast area of possessions covering the whole center of his kingdom. Other and more periferical duchies might go to your younger sons and maybe your brothers. Quite important among these is even your second son, because if the crown prince dies, he might become your successor. In England these principalities were and still are the Prince of Wales (since 1301) and the Duke of York. In France it was the "Dauphin" (from his region Dauphine). In the HRE it was the German King (that was elective and therefore the situation is a bit different). In Castille/Spain it was the Prince of Asturias and I guess you can find a similar tradition in each important kingdom.
Naturally every player is free to make his own choices, but when I play I try to respect these traditions or at least create new similar ones to lay the ground for a prospering dynasty.
Thus when I played the King of Naples (with my main demesnes in Sicily) I made my heir the Duke of Apulia. When he died prematurely the line passed on my second son. Apulia was blocked and the heir became traditionally the Duke of Campania. As Emperor of Byzantium I created the Prince of Hellas for the same role and I even revoked the count of Athens to pass that title on my heir.
For these reasons, if I played the King of England I'd always try to conquer Wales asap and give it to my heir. But if I create him King of Wales he becomes independent. That's why there should be a duchy/principality of Wales.

So in that case you actually got a great tradition starting quite early in the timeframe.
But now let's see the case of the duchies in 1.05.
The Duke of Norfolk was created in 1391 and I assure you that this is almost the best you get (I just controled the Duke of Gloucester and he was created in 1385 and then again in 1414. I didn't control Cornwall and York, since they seem to be obvious choices and I think they don't need discussion). So maybe you're going well prefering Norfolk over East Anglia, though I doubt that he even controled Bedfordshire. With the name of East Anglia I just wanted to give an extra geographical notion and at the same time eliminate the doubling of Norfolk as count and duke.
The Duke of Warwick was created in 1424 which is quite close to the end of the timeframe. In any case I had nothing to say against him (though I actually wouldn't have believed that he was almost the first of the lot).
The Duke of Buckingham (introduced in DV) was created only in 1444, that is nine years before the end of the timeframe.
The Duke of Somerset (in DV) was created in 1448, five years before the end of the timeframe. In the fifty years before there had been an Earl and a Marquess of Somerset.
The Duke of Northumberland was created only in 1551, so I think a duke of Northumbria (though it's almost the same) might even be more plausible and it eliminates having the same name twice as duke and count.
The Duke of Cumberland was created in 1644 (so you might even say that DV is right to prefer Northumberland over Cumberland).
The Duke of Sussex was created only in 1773 (thus the Archbishopric of Canterbury in DV is actually a very good choice).
As you pointed out rightly there is no duke of Essex (but he's in 1.05), though there was probably an Earl of Essex in Saxon times.
There is no evidence of a duke of Salisbury. There were several Earls of Salisbury quite early, but since the first creation the title was intermittent for the rest of the timeframe.
There is no evidence of a duke of Oxford, but there was an Earl of Oxford since 1141. But since the English earls were more similar to counts, the Duke of Buckingham seems actually a slightly better choice in DV, also because it puts another well known name on the map avoiding the doubling of Oxford.
There is no evidence of a duke of Hampshire.
There was no duke or earl of Deheubarth.
The duchies and earldoms of Gwynedd exist only in fiction.

As you can see, half of the English duchy titles in 1.05 are not documented in medieval sources. DV had a few improvements, some even quite important, but there seems to be lots of room for further discussion.

A final question: And where could we put the late Duke of Earl (created in 1962 by Gene Chandler, the king of Doo-Wop)? :rofl:

 

[unmerged(83459)]

To be complete:

The Duke of Cornwall was the first to be created in 1337. Lancaster followed in 1351 and York arrived in 1385.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

I agree with Veldmaarschalk. East Anglia, Sussex, Wessex, Mercia....these were all Anglo-Saxon kingdoms which were eliminited before CK timeframe.

Although I do agree to a certain degree with you. It is my opinion also that there should be one Duchy/Principality of Wales. The best would be to unite current duchies of Gwynedd and Deheunbarth to Duchy of Wales (Principality if you're Orthodox; unfortunately it is hardcoded that way), Kingdom of Wales should be removed, no such title ever existed and if the rulers of Wales had any kingdom title it was the "King of Britons" (if I am not gravely mistaken of course). Wales however would not be part of any kingdom demense (certainly not that of England also), and it would be a similar situation like with Finland or Brittany.

British Isles duchy setup I made some time ago:

All English duchies in this setup were created in the CK timeframe, except Somerset which was created some 20 years after CK timeframe and Warwick which was obviously never a duchy but was influental earldom and I think it's logical to raise to it duchy status, after all it has been done in other parts as well with influental counties and lesser titles.

 

[Beauclerc]

I think the problem (confusion?) here is that CK has a limited hierarchical structure - King, Duke, Count.

A Duke in England wasn't necessarily any more powerful in terms of land than an Earl because generally speaking a Duke was usually an Earl with close Royal blood (brother of the king, son of the king etc). There's no correlation between English Dukes and CK Dukes.

An Earl in England could have a title which didn't reflect his land ownership nor his power. The Duke of Warwick was often held by a very powerful man in terms of land and resources - but in CK he'd only have Warwickshire.

Even though I'm an avid reader of Medieval English history - when I play CK I don't find it too hard to map the differences in my head. For example - I consider the title King of Wales to be Prince of Wales as it's a fairly straight conversion. The Dukes in Wales (Deneubath and Gwynedd in the game) - are minor princes.

In England, which counties belong to which Dukedom are irrelvant. I just use the title in CK to reflect their power within the realm. So the Earl of Lancaster in history may have held land scattered through England and Normandy - so the counties included in the Dukedom of Lancaster in CK are just like combining all his scattered lands and putting them in one place. With that in mind - which counties are included aren't so relevant because we'll never get a historical match due to the organisation of titles in England.

The other option for future development would be to have Earls as Dukes, and Sheriffs as Counts in England. It still wouldn't be that accurate as a Sheriff wasn't the equivalent of a Count - he had a specific role and it wasn't (necessarily) a hereditary title - but they were at least allocated on a county basis.

Anyway... I tend to use my imagination to make the CK system work in England. No system will be right for all countries and cultures so I think it works ok as a "one size fits all" solution.

 

[unmerged(83459)]

Well, athat was finally as discussion based on some hard historical facts.
So let’s see what we have found until now.
First we have to say that England is one of the more complcated cases in the game, because it presents a deeply split situation.
Until 1066 we have a rational system of seven earls (referred to also as “duces”). These earlier Saxon kingdoms (Wessex, Sussex, Essex, Kent, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria) lose all political relevance with the Norman conquest. But they have maintained their geographical relevance until the present day, being still used as geographical nouns in daily life.
The Anglo-Saxon system was quite similar to analogue solutions in Germany, Italy or France and therefore it would perfectly fit in the game. This might therefore be an argument to include them in the game (since the duke level in the game is intended for regional entities and these are still England’s best known regions) , but it also might be an argument against it (since they politically ceased to exist with the starting date of the game in 1066).
Here is needed a fundamental decision. Personally I’d prefer to see them included, because this would give the player more options (to recreate the Saxon system or a Norman solution). But I’d accept even a solution without the Saxon regions/earldoms. We should however consider, that if we exclude the Saxon titles, there might not be enough dukes in the time frame to cover all of England and thus we might need to include even a few earls.
What we should exclude however is a partially solution, that is include two or three Saxon titles, but not the others. So if we exclude Mercia and East Anglia, then we should exclude even the dukes of Essex and Sussex (who are currently in patch 1.05).
After 1066 we have then a long period without any dukes in England. The first of them, the Duke of Cornwall was created only in 1337, the starting date of the 3rd scenario.
All the later duchies in England were then created towards the end of the timeframe, most of them in the last 10 or 20 years. Only very few of these achieved a regional character and are still today referred to as regional entities: certainly Cornwall, maybe York and Lancaster. Only these three should therefore be allowed to have a regional character and be composed of more than two counties.
All the others were without a clear cut regional identity. And as Beauclerc notes

the title didn't necessarily match the land they held (which could be scattered throughout England and Normandy).

To represent this situation I’d say that all other duchies should be composed of not more than two counties and moreover these two might even be not adjacent!
As regards the scenarios our findings mean that there should not be a single duke in England in the two earlier scenarios and in the third there should be only one (Cornwall). The player is therefore free to create the system of his preference. With a little imagination (as Beauclerc puts it) you could recreate the seven earldom by creating first the Duke of Mercia and then adding the titles of other dukes in the same area (like Warwick) or viceversa first create Buckingham and add Essex etc.
So which dukes are available in the timeframe to be included in the duchy system?
Since everybody converges on the necessity to have a duke/Prince of Wales this question should be decided. I also agree on the fact that the king of Wales should be excluded, at least (if you want to keep him in the 1st scenario) from the duchy system.
Cornwall is a duchy that probably existed as an indpendent regional entity since Roman times. No question it needs a preminent role and preferably three or four counties.
York and Lancaster are among the most important duchies, the two dominating England’s north. If we decide to exclude Northumbria then I’d exclude even the dukes of Northumberland and Cumberland (since they were created much later) and give those two counties to York and Lancaster).
Gloucester and Norfolk were created in the 14th century and held important offices.
Warwick, Buckingham and Somerset were created very late in the timeframe, but still should be included.
Finnelach has brought to our attention the Duke of Bedford who was actually created in 1414, that is a decade or three earlier than the other three. So he should be included too.
Last but not least we have the archbishopric of Canterbury for sure inclusion and eventually the other six Saxon earldoms (with Canterbury representing the seventh that is Kent).
Finally we have to see which counties to assign to which duchy. If I count right there are 30 counties in England alone (excluding Wales). So if we’d assign only two of them to most of the duchies we’d need at least 13 dukes (with Cornwall, York and Lancaster having 3 counties).
The list above has 10 Norman dukes and 16 if we add even the Saxon duchies. We have to see how we can get this to match. We might need some more Norman dukes or earls or create even smaller duchies. Some duchies might even exclude each other since their territory seems to match the same counties (Norfolk and East Anglia). Maybe in these cases a little more research might be useful to get it as close as possible.
So let’s make a first try with the Saxon regions included, starting from south-west:
Cornwall (Cornwall, Devon, Exeter)
Somerset (Somerset, Dorset)
Gloucester (Gloucester, Bristol)
Wessex (Hampshire, Salisbury)
Sussex (Sussex, Surrey)
Canterbury (Kent)
Warwick (Warwick, Hereford)
Buckingham (Oxford, Shrewsbury)
Bedford (Bedford, Northampton)
Essex (Essex)
East Anglia (Norfolk, Suffolk)
Norfolk (-)
Mercia (Leicester, Lincoln)
Lancaster (Lancaster, Chester, Westmoreland)
York (York, Durham)
Northumbria (Northumberland, Cumberland)
The only duchy without territorial continuity in this system is Buckingham. Kent and Essex might even be accepted as one-county duchies. But the biggest problem seems to be that we need to choose between East Anglia and Norfolk.
Further research on the actual collocation of each duchy has evidenced an even more complicated situation. For example has been found that the duke of Norfolk had its seat in Arundel Castle in Sussex and the duke of Bedford had his in Buckinghamshire, while Buckingham’s family was actually coming from Stafford. This is why he was given Shrewsbury (which would be better renamed Staffordshire anyway).
Now, since many seem to be against the inclusion of the Saxon titles, let’s see how we can reorganize the system without them.
Cornwall (Cornwall, Devon, Exeter)
Somerset (Somerset, Dorset)
Gloucester (Gloucester, Bristol)
Winchester* (Hampshire, Salisbury)
Canterbury (Kent, Surrey)
Warwick (Warwick, Hereford)
Buckingham (Oxford, Shrewsbury)
Bedford (Bedford, Northampton)
- (Essex)
Norfolk (Norfolk, Suffolk or Sussex)
Leicester* (Leicester, Lincoln)
- (Chester)
Lancaster (Lancaster, Westmoreland, Cumberland)
York (York, Durham, Northumberland)
Northumberland and Cumberland are divided between York and Lancaster and thus both duchies move north. As a result of the elimination of Mercia, Sussex and Wessex we have however a number of not assigned counties in middle and south England. Further research has revealed that one of the first Norman earldoms was Leicester (1107) in middle England, so this might cover former Mercia. In southern England we might extend Canterbury into Surrey and maybe give Sussex to Norfolk. The duke of Norfolk held also the office of Marshall and therefore it might be a good idea to move him closer to the southern border. But still we have to find two other important earldoms for the counties of Hampshire, Salisbury, Essex, Suffolk and Chester. For Hampshire and Salisbury the solution might be the earldom of Winchester which was first created in 1207. Essex might be combined with Suffolk, but under which title? Further research seems to be necessary.
If we can’t ressolve these last open questions and even if we accept the inclusion of the two earldoms on the duchy level, it seems to me that this system appears even more as a compromise than the other one above. But this is my personal opinion. May the discussion continue…

 

[unmerged(83459)]

I have just learned that the dukes of Somerset have their ducal seat in Maiden Bradley, Wiltshire. This suggests to change Salisbury and Dorset between the duchies of Somerset and Wessex/Winchester.

The new set up would be as follows (At least on the current CK map the two Somerset counties, like Buckingham, would be not adjacent):

Cornwall (Cornwall, Devon, Exeter)
Somerset (Somerset, Salisbury)
Gloucester (Gloucester, Bristol)
Wessex (Hampshire, Dorset)
Sussex (Sussex, Surrey)
Canterbury (Kent)
Warwick (Warwick, Hereford)
Buckingham (Oxford, Shrewsbury)
Bedford (Bedford, Northampton)
Essex (Essex)
East Anglia/Norfolk (Norfolk, Suffolk)
Mercia (Leicester, Lincoln)
Lancaster (Lancaster, Chester, Westmoreland)
York (York, Durham)
Northumbria (Northumberland, Cumberland)

 

[Beauclerc]

After 1066 we have then a long period without any dukes in England.

For the last time - Dukedoms in England werenot the same as Continental dukedoms, even in the 14th Century. They were titles generally bestowed on Royalty to separate them from Earls. That's it - it's not a case of England suddenly employing a Ducal system later in the medieval period. The creation of Royal Dukes made no difference to the division of land at all.

William of Normandy deliberately destroyed the Earldoms of Anglo-Saxon England - Mercia, Wessex and Northumbria. None of these have any relevance in modern England - they were destroyed and never returned. The counties in England already existed under the Saxons and the Normans merely used these counties for administration - and completely removed the grouping of counties into larger Earldoms.

The system as it stands now is fine because it best reflects the situation in England in 1066. Having Dukedoms in CK however allows us to have powerful nobles in England, which of course it did have - it's just in 1066 the title of each Earl didn't reflect the land they held.

I'm basically repeating myself over and over here so will leave it. In summary I don't agree with your ideas.