doesn't make you emperor, simply proclaims your religion the official one in the hre. although i suppose you could try to win electors over, but might be difficult, time-consuming, etc...
- 1
Emperor can't upgrade to kingdom or empire
- Thread starter Sandmann
- 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.
doesn't make you emperor, simply proclaims your religion the official one in the hre. although i suppose you could try to win electors over, but might be difficult, time-consuming, etc...
In the abstract, something that 1) offers multiple paths to the goal, 2) has complex implications arising from simple rules and 3) includes the element of luck but does not require it, is IMO pretty much the description of a perfect mechanic.
That said, you are for some reason taking "government rank" as a goal in itself. That's fine (emergent goals are what the game is about), but in terms of mechanics the government rank only gives you things you can also get in other ways if you want them. E.g. three different idea groups give you a diplomat.
Ps. you also left out "form HRE".
Yes, you could argue that "regular members" should be replaced with "non-electors", because free cities and the emperor are not really regular members. As ForzaA mentioned in the bug thread you posted, that is not entirely clear, so hopefully the tooltip will be clarified.
- 3
Which actually makes a passably accurate translation of the Latin word dux from which English "duke" is derived (via French "duc").
- 2
- 1
well, really dukes (or their various representations) were just useless nobles with money, with which to recruit armies, from slaving their peasants all day (like sanctioned bullies)... doesn't matter which country you're from, i think that basic medieval system was pervasive throughout europe in the middle centuries; inherited nobility and all that nonsense. the roots of which can probably be traced back to roman reforms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_reforms#Marian_reforms (join our army and we'll give you land, otherwise suffer a peasant's fate type of deal).
Last edited:
- 4
Marian reforms were a pragmatic solution to refill the ranks of the Roman army because it was had been depleted from constant warfare. I'm not sure how Rome building up the first professional army has anything to do with feudalism.
Also, what you're speaking of is much more relevant to late antiquity and early medieval, where in Germanic societies, every free man could be levied by their king. The Byzantines had a very different approach with the Themes, in which local rulers, Strategoi, would have the autonomy to raise their armies to protect the borders (and soldiers were settled along said borders, but that's not new as that was the purpose of Colonias). But the high medieval period wasn't nearly as bad as it is made out to be. IIRC Serfdom largely stopped existing around this period in Western Europe.
- 2
- 1
so how many senator's sons do you know of in the military and a front line unit? have you read 'war is a racket'?
you think anything has changed?
nothing has changed...who do you think will pay for 'space tourism'? who do you think will pay for nightclubs and bars in space? and who do you think will use them? why would the income gap be growing? how can the rich afford to go to space? what are 'war-time profits' and how are they related to today? all these questions and more... answered in tomorrow's show...
who's the duke of your local district? i dunno, look it up, he's probably in the phone book under the title 'sir', or 'honorable', or whatever the local tradition is... those types of nobles still exist.
but the real types of aristocrats you should be worried about are those who currently lead govts/companies... they're the same feudal dynasties from europe, which now own 90% of america... fundamentally, it's no different: you still have individuals/families who exert an excessive amount of control over local/state matters to benefit their families, at the expense of the 'peasants' (ie: rest of us).
instead of national imperialists though, they are now corporate imperialists... personal, capitalistic empires - instead of national militaristic ones (narcissism is usually involved, ie: entitled aristocrats). but almost all of them mix business with politics (sort of like fascists).
but that is just the beginning... when does it end? when you say it ends...
- when the peasant/slave state fails to serve, the aristocracy starves? - ghost in the shell
Last edited:
- 3
Actually, in my Fremperor game it was the ducal 25-year cooldown on national focus change that was by far the biggest loss. As you said, you get the diplomat back with the 2nd reform, plus more diplomats from ideas. Autonomy schmautonomy, doesn't matter that much. But the cooldown...
- 1
- 1
Serfdom is an exploitative socioeconomic structure, but not all explotiative socioeconomic structures are serfdom.so how many senator's sons do you know of in the military and a front line unit? have you read 'war is a racket'?
you think anything has changed?
- 3
i think you failed to extrapolate... those structures didn't just disappear over night, if at all in name only... and it took hundreds of years... nobles just don't up and disappear (as per recent dev notes). in fact, in some places as mentioned in poland they still haven't changed in name, where provinces are today called 'wojewodztwa' - leader of warriors, or warlords... ;o
today serfdom takes other forms: rising housing and education prices, stagnating wages, plummeting mean savings rate, national debt, taxes, etc...
Last edited:
- 2
Eh, no, it's all pretty murky. Venice was a duchy—sort of ("Doge" is Venetian for duke). But they were also Imperial (lords of a quarter and half a quarter of the Roman Empire), and set up vassal duchies across the Aegean after the Fourth Crusade, some of which still existed in the 1440s (notably Naxos, in game).
A few rulers tried to get their HRE states raised to kingdoms. The Dukes of Burgundy spent a fortune trying to turn their (mostly Imperial) domains into a reborn Middle Francia, and received dispensation from the Habsburg Emperor to do so, but extinguished themselves trying to connect up their territory.
The Electors of Brandenburg also wanted the status of Kings, but could only claim kingship in their domains outside the Empire (i.e. Prussia). (They were called Kings in Prussia for a long while, but I think that's more to do with Polish than Imperial sensibilities.) Technically, though, Brandenburg remained a march-electorate and separate from Prussia until the HRE was dissolved.
It was very much up to the Emperor and the Imperial Diet whether you got those sorts of honors. Even Electors who became kings of other places (like those of Hannover and Saxony) were still just Electors within their Imperial domains.
No, no, it's very much an invention of the Austrians, in a forged grant called the Privilegium Maius.
- 5
- 1
not that large; but venice is a republic and not a monarchy anyways - not hereditary.
that has to do with the failure of those specific states, and also, we're talking about the same thing then, bcs as holland - taking england/denmark - i should now be king... period... :\
unless of course, i'm going to depose all the local dukes, or downgrade their rank... i don't see how it's going to work out... ;o
only problem with this interpretation is that the grand duchy of muscovy existed prior to that date... about a century earlier...
poland was also basically an elective archduchy (but you call it a kingdom), because they used the title king (krol)... but they were basically elected from mostly local nobility, and as such was very much a hereditary title, with successive rulers claiming to be original descendants of the piast dynasty... some claiming descendancy from emperors of rome (nutcases)...
semantics, basically... i've now exhausted this issue extensively...
- 5
so how many senator's sons do you know of in the military and a front line unit? have you read 'war is a racket'?
you think anything has changed?
who do you think will pay for 'space tourism'? who do you think will pay for nightclubs and bars in space? and who do you think will use them? why would the income gap be growing? how can the rich afford to go to space? what are 'war-time profits' and how are they related to today? all these questions and more... answered in tomorrow's show...
who's the duke of your local district? i dunno, look it up, he's probably in the phone book under the title 'sir', or 'honorable', or whatever the local tradition is... those types of nobles still exist.
but the real types of aristocrats you should be worried about are those who currently lead govts/companies... they're the same feudal dynasties from europe, which now own 90% of america... fundamentally, it's no different: you still have individuals/families who exert an excessive amount of control over local/state matters to benefit their families, at the expense of the 'peasants' (ie: rest of us).
instead of national imperialists though, they are now corporate imperialists... personal, capitalistic empires - instead of national militaristic ones (narcissism is usually involved, ie: entitled aristocrats). but almost all of them mix business with politics (sort of like fascists).
but that is just the beginning... when does it end? when you say it ends...
- when the peasant/slave state fails to serve, the aristocracy starves? - ghost in the shell
What the hell are you talking about? This went from what a duke is to some ramblings about 'modern' aristocracy. Seriously...
Duces were not a hereditary title to begin with. Their responsabilities were to govern limes provinces and manage the limitanei. The title would eventually be transferred into foederati societies likes the Franks and Gothic kingdoms, which would grant provinces to nobles and would become hereditary. The same is true for Counts (comes, pl. comites). Venice was a Byzantine possession, so there's nothing bizarre about a Doge being roughly the same title as a Duke.
No, because you're still a prince-elector, which was always a duke except for Bohemia. William the Conqueror was a duke in France despite being king of England.
Poland was a kingdom because it was recognized as such. This predates the elective monarchy (by some 5 or so centuries). There's no such thing as an archduchy except for Austria, which was a political fiction to raise the status of Austria beyond the other duchies of the empire.
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
obviously, you didn't extrapolate either. neither have you read the book 'war is a racket' by smedley butler, have you?
if you read it, you'd think you were living in feudal america... but it's ww1 i think...
imperialism was simply a different form of feudalism, as is capitalism as i so described.
nothing changes... in centuries... because the land-owners and capital holders don't change... moreover, the law doesn't change - it protects white collar crime.
Last edited:
- 4
What...? Modern society may have its flaws, but it is as good as it has ever been for social mobility. Regardless, this part of the discussion is nowhere near the subject at hand.
- 2
- 1
sure it is... someone pointed out (incidentally, it was you) that feudalism ended in the 14th c. in western europe, which it obviously did not. it carries on for centuries after that, and then as nationalism... and in eastern europe it carried on long after that still.
also - it's the best worst system we have, right? the motto 'keep it within the family' is still that of modern aristocrats, hence... nothing changes...
Last edited:
- 2
The dates depends on the areas, but I believe it ended around the
The rest of the comment means little....society has always been hiearchised, it literally has nothing to do with serfdom. It was a particular situation in reaction to socio-historical circumstances from the late empire until the reconstruction of large states.
- 1
- 1
well, the way i interpret it, serfdom was a product of something else: excess/ambition of the aristocracy, which led to the depletion of state coffers.
you call it a 'period' but it really isn't... it's a state of being, ie: slavery... bondage to an overlord. i think you're taking the definition a bit too literally... which, i thought, was sufficiently implied in my response.
and according to this, it was 1781: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_Patent_(1781)
i know, not just from literature, but from personal accounts of relatives, that these practices existed up until ww1 or even after, in eastern europe.
these policies didn't just vanish overnight... they still exist today, in other forms as well...
you call it a 'period' but it really isn't... it's a state of being, ie: slavery... bondage to an overlord. i think you're taking the definition a bit too literally... which, i thought, was sufficiently implied in my response.
and according to this, it was 1781: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_Patent_(1781)
i know, not just from literature, but from personal accounts of relatives, that these practices existed up until ww1 or even after, in eastern europe.
these policies didn't just vanish overnight... they still exist today, in other forms as well...
Last edited:
- 2
It effectively didn't exist in France and England after the 14th century. The legal status didn't change, but that's irrelevant. Eastern Europe is another thing entirely, but that's not what I said. Serfdom's origin has nothing to do with excess or ambition, just the need to have people working the farms, which were usually tended by slaves beforehand, not only in Roman times, but just about everywhere. The social structure and development of these societies created the relationship of serfdom, it's not aristocracy simply creating this out of thin air.
Also, you can't start using modern usage of a term when discussing historical topics. Serdom as being bonded to something comes from actual serfdom, but since it doesn't exist anymore (or exists in more remote parts of the world only), people refer to it in a more abstract way. Regardless, that use of the word is completely out of place in a historical discussion. I'm not even sure why you're starting a social critique over the question of nobility titles in a computer game.
- 2
- 1
You could dissolve the HRE, or just declare independence.
In real life an Arch Duke is supposed to be ranked above a Duke but below a King, something the Dukes of Austria created so they could raise their status equal to the prince electors.
In game, they decided to make it a Duke level. Within the game, a subject of the HRE can't elevate to Kingdom until you get elector status, not even Austria.
1. There was no non-electorate kingdom at HRE in real history.
2. Like there are one three government rank in EU4, only electorate can be a kingdom. The game doesn't need to reflect everything in history or every possibilities.
3. Electorates of HRE in real history had many privileges in real history. But in EU4, they don't have many differences with other minors. Instead, they can become a kingdom. Isn't it understandable?
4. If an HRE minor becomes HREmperor, upgrades its rank to Empire, and loses HREmperor, then HRE will have two emperor at the same time. - Remember, HRE is a country itself.
5. If an HRE minor wants to upgrade its rank more than allowed, then it can simply leave HRE and upgrade its rank.
2. Like there are one three government rank in EU4, only electorate can be a kingdom. The game doesn't need to reflect everything in history or every possibilities.
3. Electorates of HRE in real history had many privileges in real history. But in EU4, they don't have many differences with other minors. Instead, they can become a kingdom. Isn't it understandable?
4. If an HRE minor becomes HREmperor, upgrades its rank to Empire, and loses HREmperor, then HRE will have two emperor at the same time. - Remember, HRE is a country itself.
5. If an HRE minor wants to upgrade its rank more than allowed, then it can simply leave HRE and upgrade its rank.
- 1