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.
you know what i just realized though?
you can probably abuse the country formation decisions to pass reforms by adding land, pass the decisions to remove land, add land again to pass more reforms? ;o
or am i missing something? exploit universalis?
i mean... if your land leaves the hre, shouldn't you also leave the hre (which you do) and cease being emperor (you do not)? lmao... it's not even stated in the tooltip specifically that you leave the hre either, just territory being removed.
you can probably abuse the country formation decisions to pass reforms by adding land, pass the decisions to remove land, add land again to pass more reforms? ;o
or am i missing something? exploit universalis?
i mean... if your land leaves the hre, shouldn't you also leave the hre (which you do) and cease being emperor (you do not)? lmao... it's not even stated in the tooltip specifically that you leave the hre either, just territory being removed.
Last edited:
- 1
What fallacy? Electors were all vassals of the Emperor. The Duke and Prince-Elector of Brandenburg was as such, on top of calling himself 'King in Prussia' because he couldn't call himself king of Prussia due to being a member of the Empire (and there were no kingdoms in the empire except for Bohemia). They also did not 'grant themselves the title of king'. First, the Prince-Elector of Brandenburg was allowed to use the title of King in Prussia as compensation for help (not unlike how Bohemia came upon their own title). The Prince-elector of Saxony was put on the throne of the Commonwealth, which was a kingdom prior to this event. Neither of those cases indicate themselves giving themselves the title of king, you're therefore granted more actual freedom in the game than Prince-Electors were.
And the Emperor does get bonuses. I've pointed it out countless times. Just because you want -autonomy instead doesn't mean you don't get a substantial amount of bonuses. The idea to keep the integrity of the realm is so that eventually you either get an unstoppable army or full annex the richest part of the world in-game for free and instantly. I don't know what's not a massive bonus in this.
- 2
current game mechanics dictate that an elector can grant themselves the title of king, as i just stated.
the problem is with the effort it takes to get there, not the end result... you're wasting manpower on literal nonsense when you could be fast-expanding... i mean, if WC is all you care about then i guess it's end-result.
you're also required to maintain more relationships as emperor, so it's not like they're even bonuses, just requirements... govt rank was also previously just: build an embassy for +1 diplomat, hell i could build 9 embassies (1k ducats/ea)... joking obviously... not about 9k ducats, about 9 embassies, JUST so that's clear... hell i could buy myself half a dozen countries or a crown and call myself king... :\
wonder if i could buy the HRE? what does a province sell for? let's see... hmmm 100 gold? lol, i could buy all of europe at that rate...
Last edited:
- 2
Owning the land does not mean you own the titles. This is why the Duke of Burgundy had to petition to be granted the Crown of Lotharingia despite already owning most of it. Titles are legal entities that exist beyond the land they're tied to. Think about it this way, if you invade your neighbors house and take full possession of it, this does not mean you now have the deed to the house.
- 2
A problem here is that a lot of people are conflating empire and emperor. One is a title, held by the individual the other is a thing held by a nation. And while this distinction need not be made in many cases since most emperors ruled centralized empires (at least in the EUIV time frame), this is not true for the HRE. However, let's talk about what empire and emperor mean within the context of EUIV.
EUIV is about nation states in the era where nation states were replacing feudalism across Europe (a prime example being France). In this case, Empire reflects a specific type of political entity: a very large, very centralized (for the time) realm that incorporated many different cultural groups. This is, in short, what the empire government rank is meant to represent and why it has things like increased autonomy decay.
However, the HRE was unique in that it was not really like this. As opposed to the centralized empires of Great Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal, the HRE was very decentralized (and over the time period that the game covers it became increasingly so up until its final dissolution by Napoleon), with the princes having far more authority over their own realm than any subsection of any other empire ever really enjoyed. In short, the HRE was more of a feudalistic empire than the centralized one that we see represented by the empire rank. The emperor most certainly did not have absolute power in the Empire, and the amount of central authority held by the modern empires of France, Spain, and so on, would have been a wet dream for the HRE Emperor.
Furthermore, as I stated earlier, we need to differentiate between an empire and an emperor. For normal nations this is not needed because you form one nation and your leader is the leader of that nation. No other nation is a confederacy of multiple other nations. However, in the very decentralized HRE, this is not true. If the duke of Austria becomes the emperor then the duke of Austria is the emperor, but Austria is not an empire. In EUIV titles (at least the government rank titles) like empire and kingdom are titles held by nations, and not just individuals. Thus while the Duke of Austria is Emperor, Austria is still just a normal duchy, politically speaking. And this is rather fairly reflected in both history and the game.
So no, the HRE Emperor should not get the empire bonuses afforded to other nations until he actually unifies the empire. This is because of the nature of the HRE and the nations therein.
That's a false conflation, because we are talking about the HRE and not any other nation. The HRE was extremely idiosyncratic and did not behave like pretty much any other state or entity at the time. What England and France did matters fuck all, because France and England's empires were constructed under an entirely different framework than the HRE and the nations therein.
And that's irrelevant. Whether or not you absorb a kingdom matters not, because kingdoms are not some magical thing that inherently exist and are transferred like that. They are titles that can be created and destroyed.
What does matter is that within the HRE things titles such as kingdoms were titles that were handed out, not titles that one could simply claim hold to and suddenly say: "Well, I want to be a kingdom now, so I am."
No, you don't. In a centralized state, sure, you would, but the HRE was not such a state, and until you unify it will not be such a state.
Not in the sense that you are thinking they are, no. Hell in some ways the electors (and the princes) had more power than the emperor (albeit not individually). The princes curtailed and could control the power of the Emperor in the HRE. This was not true of the other empires of Europe.
Also, no, the emperor is not a vassal to himself. Again, you are conflating an emperor and an empire. An emperor is an individual, not a nation. In the emperor had power, not Austria. This is a very important distinction. So while the emperor himself, who was also the duke of Austria, was not a vassal, Austria was a vassal of the Empire.
You keep trying to portray the HRE as a centralized empire with the emperor as the absolute authority. It wasn't. Even during the Middle Ages it wasn't quite that (although it was far more centralized than it was during the EUIV time frame). Yes, electors could, to a degree earn that title And this is precisely what happened with Bohemia, Brandenburgh/Prussia, Saxony, etc.
Because they don't reflect the realities of the HRE. That you made that incredibly inane statement itself reflects that you don't understand the nature of the HRE.
And you are completely wrong about that. Even without autonomy the emperor has some ridiculous bonuses that only increases as he passes more and more reforms. Early on the emperor is by and far the strongest force in Europe. And if you actually bother governing the empire well and passing reforms, you only become more and more disproportionately powerful. Hell, if you pass the reform that vassalizes all princes you become the most powerful force in Europe with just that. And you actually get substantially weaker if you choose to integrate the whole empire into one nation than if you just kept everyone vassalized.
The truth of the matter is that as long as you can keep the title (which itself isn't very hard once you gain the title), the more reforms you pass, the more and more you come out on top as Emperor. Autonomy reduction is tiny compared to what you get as Emperor. Early on you are far more powerful than any other nation, with even the Ottomans halfway through expansion unable to match you. As time passes and you pass more and more reforms (which is what you should be doing as emperor, you can opt not to, but then it's your fault for not reaping the rewards of being emperor, not the game's), this power only continues to grow and grow so that even if the initial bonuses stop meaning much because you are so large (or rather, only the tax and manpower ones, all the other bonuses remain very powerful throughout the entire game) the stuff you are continuously gaining makes you better and better.
No. They got RM with them because they were very influential and powerful, and everyone wanted to marry into influential and powerful countries. This is the same reason why France could get someone as a potential candidate for the throne of Spain. It wasn't threat of violence, it was the potential promise for defense and alliances that largely spurred royal marriages.
And the reason why France and the Germanic nations (especially Austria) dominated the thrones of Europe is because these were the most powerful nations and everyone wanted an alliance with them, and marriages was a good way to secure way. This is the exact same reason why Queen Victoria had grandchildren in the thrones of Russia and Germany, because the British Empire had been the most powerful nation in Europe and everyone wanted to ally it and buddy up to it.
Seriously, you have no idea what the flip you are talking about, and it would be a waste of time to go into these ridiculous points. Suffice it to say, you should invest time actually studying history and educating yourself instead of buying into conspiracy theories held together by the loosest of threads.
EUIV is about nation states in the era where nation states were replacing feudalism across Europe (a prime example being France). In this case, Empire reflects a specific type of political entity: a very large, very centralized (for the time) realm that incorporated many different cultural groups. This is, in short, what the empire government rank is meant to represent and why it has things like increased autonomy decay.
However, the HRE was unique in that it was not really like this. As opposed to the centralized empires of Great Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal, the HRE was very decentralized (and over the time period that the game covers it became increasingly so up until its final dissolution by Napoleon), with the princes having far more authority over their own realm than any subsection of any other empire ever really enjoyed. In short, the HRE was more of a feudalistic empire than the centralized one that we see represented by the empire rank. The emperor most certainly did not have absolute power in the Empire, and the amount of central authority held by the modern empires of France, Spain, and so on, would have been a wet dream for the HRE Emperor.
Furthermore, as I stated earlier, we need to differentiate between an empire and an emperor. For normal nations this is not needed because you form one nation and your leader is the leader of that nation. No other nation is a confederacy of multiple other nations. However, in the very decentralized HRE, this is not true. If the duke of Austria becomes the emperor then the duke of Austria is the emperor, but Austria is not an empire. In EUIV titles (at least the government rank titles) like empire and kingdom are titles held by nations, and not just individuals. Thus while the Duke of Austria is Emperor, Austria is still just a normal duchy, politically speaking. And this is rather fairly reflected in both history and the game.
So no, the HRE Emperor should not get the empire bonuses afforded to other nations until he actually unifies the empire. This is because of the nature of the HRE and the nations therein.
That's a false conflation, because we are talking about the HRE and not any other nation. The HRE was extremely idiosyncratic and did not behave like pretty much any other state or entity at the time. What England and France did matters fuck all, because France and England's empires were constructed under an entirely different framework than the HRE and the nations therein.
And that's irrelevant. Whether or not you absorb a kingdom matters not, because kingdoms are not some magical thing that inherently exist and are transferred like that. They are titles that can be created and destroyed.
What does matter is that within the HRE things titles such as kingdoms were titles that were handed out, not titles that one could simply claim hold to and suddenly say: "Well, I want to be a kingdom now, so I am."
No, you don't. In a centralized state, sure, you would, but the HRE was not such a state, and until you unify it will not be such a state.
Not in the sense that you are thinking they are, no. Hell in some ways the electors (and the princes) had more power than the emperor (albeit not individually). The princes curtailed and could control the power of the Emperor in the HRE. This was not true of the other empires of Europe.
Also, no, the emperor is not a vassal to himself. Again, you are conflating an emperor and an empire. An emperor is an individual, not a nation. In the emperor had power, not Austria. This is a very important distinction. So while the emperor himself, who was also the duke of Austria, was not a vassal, Austria was a vassal of the Empire.
You keep trying to portray the HRE as a centralized empire with the emperor as the absolute authority. It wasn't. Even during the Middle Ages it wasn't quite that (although it was far more centralized than it was during the EUIV time frame). Yes, electors could, to a degree earn that title And this is precisely what happened with Bohemia, Brandenburgh/Prussia, Saxony, etc.
Because they don't reflect the realities of the HRE. That you made that incredibly inane statement itself reflects that you don't understand the nature of the HRE.
And you are completely wrong about that. Even without autonomy the emperor has some ridiculous bonuses that only increases as he passes more and more reforms. Early on the emperor is by and far the strongest force in Europe. And if you actually bother governing the empire well and passing reforms, you only become more and more disproportionately powerful. Hell, if you pass the reform that vassalizes all princes you become the most powerful force in Europe with just that. And you actually get substantially weaker if you choose to integrate the whole empire into one nation than if you just kept everyone vassalized.
The truth of the matter is that as long as you can keep the title (which itself isn't very hard once you gain the title), the more reforms you pass, the more and more you come out on top as Emperor. Autonomy reduction is tiny compared to what you get as Emperor. Early on you are far more powerful than any other nation, with even the Ottomans halfway through expansion unable to match you. As time passes and you pass more and more reforms (which is what you should be doing as emperor, you can opt not to, but then it's your fault for not reaping the rewards of being emperor, not the game's), this power only continues to grow and grow so that even if the initial bonuses stop meaning much because you are so large (or rather, only the tax and manpower ones, all the other bonuses remain very powerful throughout the entire game) the stuff you are continuously gaining makes you better and better.
No. They got RM with them because they were very influential and powerful, and everyone wanted to marry into influential and powerful countries. This is the same reason why France could get someone as a potential candidate for the throne of Spain. It wasn't threat of violence, it was the potential promise for defense and alliances that largely spurred royal marriages.
And the reason why France and the Germanic nations (especially Austria) dominated the thrones of Europe is because these were the most powerful nations and everyone wanted an alliance with them, and marriages was a good way to secure way. This is the exact same reason why Queen Victoria had grandchildren in the thrones of Russia and Germany, because the British Empire had been the most powerful nation in Europe and everyone wanted to ally it and buddy up to it.
Seriously, you have no idea what the flip you are talking about, and it would be a waste of time to go into these ridiculous points. Suffice it to say, you should invest time actually studying history and educating yourself instead of buying into conspiracy theories held together by the loosest of threads.
Last edited:
- 8
- 1
i think the classic example is that of charlemagne writing to the pope to beg him for the title of emperor... i believe that belongs in the anthology of alternate history...
wow, another troll post, with troll-bait media as bonus?...
sir, you are mistaken... an empire is that which includes multiple other kingdoms or other large principalities... which i clearly am...
in fact, this game logic you're trying to apply to real world, just doesn't fly...
and you're talking about internal HRE politics, when clearly i am not annexing principalities in the HRE... so it has NOTHING to do with that... furthermore, there would be no problem bestowing the title of king, which would be on par with other such members if you obtained that status through such acquisitions...
it's like saying that IF austria had annexed the ottoman balkans, they would NOT be granted kingship? da... seriously.. don't even... broken...
and an elector being able to grant themselves kingship is a joke in itself...
what was even the point of archducal position? to create a kingdom, which wasn't technically called a kingdom but was, just so we didn't have to call it a kingdom? oh yea... that...
and this game is the best example of that... otherwise, no comment, you seem to take my jokes as literal statements.
that's because clovis+charlemagne lifted a giant middle finger to the emperor. once again; they didn't ask for frankish/german/roman titles... they just took them...
wow, another troll post, with troll-bait media as bonus?...
sir, you are mistaken... an empire is that which includes multiple other kingdoms or other large principalities... which i clearly am...
in fact, this game logic you're trying to apply to real world, just doesn't fly...
and you're talking about internal HRE politics, when clearly i am not annexing principalities in the HRE... so it has NOTHING to do with that... furthermore, there would be no problem bestowing the title of king, which would be on par with other such members if you obtained that status through such acquisitions...
it's like saying that IF austria had annexed the ottoman balkans, they would NOT be granted kingship? da... seriously.. don't even... broken...
and an elector being able to grant themselves kingship is a joke in itself...
what was even the point of archducal position? to create a kingdom, which wasn't technically called a kingdom but was, just so we didn't have to call it a kingdom? oh yea... that...
and this game is the best example of that... otherwise, no comment, you seem to take my jokes as literal statements.
that's because clovis+charlemagne lifted a giant middle finger to the emperor. once again; they didn't ask for frankish/german/roman titles... they just took them...
Last edited:
- 2
Your point being...??
I love how instead of covering any of the other points in depth, you whinge about that. But no, I posted Cox because Cox was right. Almost everything you said in those last two paragraphs is absurdly wrong.
And you, again, fail to draw the difference between different kinds of empire. Most notably feudal empires (e.g. the HRE) that have very high autonomy for the entities that comprise it, and the far more modern version of empires that begun to re-emerge in the early modern/modern era that EUIV covers (e.g. France, the British Empire, the Ottomans, etc.). To compare the two entities as if they were in any way similar, structurally speaking, is fallacious, disingenuous, and a ridiculous conflation.
Furthermore, you fail to understand how laws work and that you can only do things within the confines of the laws, especially if you are bound by a higher set of laws other than what you want, which was very much the case in the HRE where the Emperor could not just decide to give himself whatever power or titles he wanted. In fact, in this regard especially, the Emperor's power was completely subordinate to the power of the electors and the imperial diet.
No, I'm trying to apply game logic to a game along with the historical context from the time period the game is based on. This should not be very hard to unerstand.
Wrong. Whether it's not in the HRE or not means fuckall, as annexing land outside the HRE does suddenly give a nation within the HRE, and thus bound by the laws of the HRE which it is a member state of, the right to do things that they have no legal right to do within the HRE. If you are a member of the HRE, you are bound by it's laws, emperor or not. To overcome that you either need to achieve supreme power in the HRE (unify it) or dismantle it so that you are no longer bound by it's laws.
Except there would be, because that's not allowed in the HRE. In the HRE one cannot simply bestow titles upon themselves. It's like a senator saying he's well liked and has lots of nationwide support, so he suddenly declares himself president. That's not how the laws regarding to that position work. Likewise, that's not how kingdom titles worked within the HRE.
In the exact same way that the Austrians didn't have kingdom despite gobbling up lots of foreign land, including much of, and eventually the entirety of, the kingdom of Hungary. It didn't do that until around the time of Napoleon, and even then it was mostly titular until after the dissolution of the HRE by Napoleon.
And it's far more historically accurate than what you suggest. It might not be perfect, no, but it reflects what could actually happen in history to a far better degree than . There's a reason why Austria, despite absolutely dominating the emperorship and the politics of the Empire pretty much completely from the late 1400s onwards never got the title of kingdom, and it's not because they were super friendly and didn't want the title.
Except that:
1) No, they didn't, because Charlie's decision had fuck all to do with the emperor (I assume you mean the Emperor of ERE) which had nothing to do with the HRE. Nor would it have mattered because the Emperor of the ERE had absolutely no legal authority over what happened outside of the ERE.
And:
2) Charlamagne did ask the Pope to bestow him with the title of the Holy Roman Emperor. He didn't just take it. He didn't just take the title, he had to ask the Pope for it. Unless you mean he took it from the ERE...which, again, makes no sense anyways, since the ERE didn't hold that title to begin with.
Furthermore, that has fuck all to do with this discussion, as we are talking about the actual laws of the HRE and not how it was created, which completely irrelevant. And stop brigning up Charlamange when discussing the HRE in the 1400s+, which was a completely different entity than the one Charlamagne formed (for one thing, being far less centralized than the one Charlie formed).
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
care-bear feudal politics?... never existed, never will... that's why we're still killing each other today...
believe what you will but an empire is an empire is an empire... there are no various interpretations... along with whatever other theories you can invent to cover this unfortunate blunder. their structures varied throughout history and culture, but the basic principle is the same: collection of states, ruled by sovereign.
but apparently, electors can bestow title of king on themselves... so 'apparently'... this doesn't work as you described in-game...
furthermore, you misinterpreted, because i never implied that you are granting YOURSELF anything... the electors should grant it to you upon such acquisitions... that's to be understood... normal politics of the day... if you can't handle this, don't be king... be a peasant...
that's only bcs the church didn't approve of their intervention in hungary... ottomans, different story... i just wiped out bunch of heretic protestants, that's all...
no... it was basically what replaced the crumbling ERE, whic was the foundation of the new HRE... but the basic principle is simple: charlemagne wielded the most military power. all other reasons are supplementary...
again, misinterpretation... not important whether he asked (that was rhetorical joke), it's what he implied that matters...
btw, that's some colorful language there son... the sardaukar emperor would be most pleased.
and it's mr. muad'dib to you... remember that title...
believe what you will but an empire is an empire is an empire... there are no various interpretations... along with whatever other theories you can invent to cover this unfortunate blunder. their structures varied throughout history and culture, but the basic principle is the same: collection of states, ruled by sovereign.
but apparently, electors can bestow title of king on themselves... so 'apparently'... this doesn't work as you described in-game...
furthermore, you misinterpreted, because i never implied that you are granting YOURSELF anything... the electors should grant it to you upon such acquisitions... that's to be understood... normal politics of the day... if you can't handle this, don't be king... be a peasant...
that's only bcs the church didn't approve of their intervention in hungary... ottomans, different story... i just wiped out bunch of heretic protestants, that's all...
no... it was basically what replaced the crumbling ERE, whic was the foundation of the new HRE... but the basic principle is simple: charlemagne wielded the most military power. all other reasons are supplementary...
again, misinterpretation... not important whether he asked (that was rhetorical joke), it's what he implied that matters...
btw, that's some colorful language there son... the sardaukar emperor would be most pleased.
and it's mr. muad'dib to you... remember that title...
Last edited:
- 2
Your argument essentially boils down to: fuck reality and what actually happened in history, I like this idea, so I will spout it despite it being opposed by everything that actually happened historically.
For example, you bitch about the fact that electors can become kings and the emperor's cant...despite the fact that the only kingdoms that existed in the HRE during the time of the HRE were themselves electors (Bohemia and Prussia being prime examples). And yet despite this the emperor who owned far more territory outside of the HRE as well as the kingdom of Hungary never made himself a king until Napoleon and the fall of the HRE.
Do everyone a favor and please actually read up on history before making ridiculous claims.
That difference is fucking important. Your point is as inane as saying that a pure democracy and a republican democracy are the same thing because they are both democracies, yet they are extremely different things even at the fundamental and structural level. And these things matter when grown ups are having discussions about states and how they function.
Likewise, there is a huge difference between the feudal-type empires of the HRE and the modern centralized empires of the UK, Spain, and France and so on.
Mind citing a single example of a non-elector in the HRE claiming a kingdom title before the fall of the HRE? And yet many of these nations (Bavaria, Saxony, etc.) did precisely that as soon as the HRE was dismantled by Napoleon.
And that's completely irrelevant since the Pope didn't have legal authority in the HRE, especially after the Peace of Westphalia.
...except that when the HRE was formed the ERE was still around, kicking, and a world class power. Seriously, actually read into history instead of pulling ridiculous claims out of your ass. The HRE pretty much had absolutely nothing to do with the ERE. It in no way, shape, or form replaced or was meant to replace the ERE. And the ERE wouldn't crumble until much, much later.
Your comment is as stupid as saying that America was formed to replace the crumbling British Empire.
No, they aren't. That's a childish understanding of history and completely ignores many of the reasons why he held so much power to begin with. You are making a post hoc rationalization for why something happened and it falls apart under analysis.
...there was no such thing as a Sardaukar Emperor. The Sardaukar were a fighting force, not a nation or a planet (they came from Salusa Secundus) or anything of that sort. They served the Padishah Emperors of House Corrino.
For example, you bitch about the fact that electors can become kings and the emperor's cant...despite the fact that the only kingdoms that existed in the HRE during the time of the HRE were themselves electors (Bohemia and Prussia being prime examples). And yet despite this the emperor who owned far more territory outside of the HRE as well as the kingdom of Hungary never made himself a king until Napoleon and the fall of the HRE.
Do everyone a favor and please actually read up on history before making ridiculous claims.
That difference is fucking important. Your point is as inane as saying that a pure democracy and a republican democracy are the same thing because they are both democracies, yet they are extremely different things even at the fundamental and structural level. And these things matter when grown ups are having discussions about states and how they function.
Likewise, there is a huge difference between the feudal-type empires of the HRE and the modern centralized empires of the UK, Spain, and France and so on.
Mind citing a single example of a non-elector in the HRE claiming a kingdom title before the fall of the HRE? And yet many of these nations (Bavaria, Saxony, etc.) did precisely that as soon as the HRE was dismantled by Napoleon.
And that's completely irrelevant since the Pope didn't have legal authority in the HRE, especially after the Peace of Westphalia.
...except that when the HRE was formed the ERE was still around, kicking, and a world class power. Seriously, actually read into history instead of pulling ridiculous claims out of your ass. The HRE pretty much had absolutely nothing to do with the ERE. It in no way, shape, or form replaced or was meant to replace the ERE. And the ERE wouldn't crumble until much, much later.
Your comment is as stupid as saying that America was formed to replace the crumbling British Empire.
No, they aren't. That's a childish understanding of history and completely ignores many of the reasons why he held so much power to begin with. You are making a post hoc rationalization for why something happened and it falls apart under analysis.
...there was no such thing as a Sardaukar Emperor. The Sardaukar were a fighting force, not a nation or a planet (they came from Salusa Secundus) or anything of that sort. They served the Padishah Emperors of House Corrino.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
you're right... fuck reality... because the church and german principalities didn't intervene in poland to force catholic conversion, and to secure their allegiance through such rites...
not all electors were kingdoms, and they certainly didn't have the right to grant themselves that title... yet you keep averting that topic to assert a non-existent point...
and yet again, conflating republicanism and monarchies in relation to empires... when the game mechanics say nothing of such matters... it's simply an autonomy bonus... might as well be true of imperial rome...
none of this matters, because... video game logic...
discussing history with kids on the internet is like staring through a very small lens...
correction, after, not 'as soon as'... sounds... mangled... in which case, it wasn't the HRE any more, now was it? point irrelevant... and austria-hungary isn't hre either.
i'm still waiting for you to drop a f' yo mother joke or something... right in line with the rest of this derailment trolling...
it doesn't seem to matter that in-game, the model has absolutely nothing to do with the issues you describe.
not all electors were kingdoms, and they certainly didn't have the right to grant themselves that title... yet you keep averting that topic to assert a non-existent point...
and yet again, conflating republicanism and monarchies in relation to empires... when the game mechanics say nothing of such matters... it's simply an autonomy bonus... might as well be true of imperial rome...
none of this matters, because... video game logic...
discussing history with kids on the internet is like staring through a very small lens...
correction, after, not 'as soon as'... sounds... mangled... in which case, it wasn't the HRE any more, now was it? point irrelevant... and austria-hungary isn't hre either.
i'm still waiting for you to drop a f' yo mother joke or something... right in line with the rest of this derailment trolling...
it doesn't seem to matter that in-game, the model has absolutely nothing to do with the issues you describe.
Last edited:
- 2
Nope, not what I said. Put your little man made of straw away and actually argue the points being made. What I said was that the Pope did not have legal authority in the Empire. You are, as usual, conflating two completely different claims to try to pretend you are right.
And I never made that claim, and it is an irrelevant claim. I did however make the claim that all kingdoms in the HRE were electors, and that even all-mighty Austria who controlled the Emperorship so often it might as well have been dynastic and who held vast amounts of land outside the HRE including large parts of Northern Italy and the Kingdom of Hungary couldn't proclaim itself a kingdom. This wasn't because the Austrians felt like being nice, but because they couldn't.
The analogy flies over your head, I see.
The very simple point being made is that just as there are different types of democracies and monarchies that are vastly different despite being the same kind of things, different kinds of empires can be vastly different things.
I'm not the one doing the conflations here. That you think that an analogy is somehow a conflation is demonstrative of the problem here.
An autonomy bonus that is included in the game for a reason, and not just because the devs felt it would be cool. It's the same reason why the different government types have the bonuses they do. It's not because the devs threw it randomly together, but because there was some type of historical precedence to it.
Well, Rome was a centralized empire, not a feudal one. As was the ERE.
And yes, that's entirely the point. That as soon as nations got out of the HRE (and by that I literally mean within the same year or two) they were perfectly happy with calling themselves kingdoms, yet before they couldn't. This wasn't just because these nations thought "hey being a duchy is cool, no need to be a kingdom" but because of the structure of the HRE. If Austria could have been a kingdom, it would have damn well become one and exploited any loophole necessary to do so. The fact that it didn't despite dominating the emperorship for over 400 years is proof of it.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
whatever, it's just further evidence of militaristic intervention/threats to obtain political goals... adhering to some care-bear view of feudal europe is like asking for a trip to the clinic...
and i think i'll call it a day... because you seem to think that groundlessly attacking people because you cannot interpret what is being said to you, is appropriate...
seriously... who types that much?... it's some sort of concentrated effort to fill a page with irrelevant information in some attempt to discredit/defame...
you know what... you're right... i proclaim you emperor of internet trolls... settled, peace signed, war cancelled (as per burgundy inheritance event), we all go home for tea, because honestly... it wasn't worth it...
like trying to explain something to a machine; a poorly coded one at that.
Last edited:
- 3
Ah refusing to address the points and attacking the poster, that's as good as a concession of defeat. You heard it here first: @rizla7 admits he was wrong about government ranks and the HRE.
- 1
- 1
so you found the irony in my statement, congratulations, i tried to hide it well... but my plans were foiled... thanks for revealing yourself btw.
and look, i'll spell it out again for clarity, because the trolls are conflating issues here.
there are 2 issues:
1a. territorial domains, and the accepted/mainstream definition of 'empire', which is modelled by autonomy, hence has NOTHING do do with titles/HRE... whatsoever... at all... period... a title does not confer autonomy bonus...
1b. the HRE title of 'ermperor' as modelled in the game, is not tied to the govt rank of 'empire', so one has nothing to do with the other...
2a. titles, re: various geopolitical issues that arise from this nonsense, as a kingdom being part of a duchy, not vice versa in the case of holland anexing britain.
2b. titles, re: the fact electors can grant themselves the title of king.
and look, i'll spell it out again for clarity, because the trolls are conflating issues here.
there are 2 issues:
1a. territorial domains, and the accepted/mainstream definition of 'empire', which is modelled by autonomy, hence has NOTHING do do with titles/HRE... whatsoever... at all... period... a title does not confer autonomy bonus...
1b. the HRE title of 'ermperor' as modelled in the game, is not tied to the govt rank of 'empire', so one has nothing to do with the other...
2a. titles, re: various geopolitical issues that arise from this nonsense, as a kingdom being part of a duchy, not vice versa in the case of holland anexing britain.
2b. titles, re: the fact electors can grant themselves the title of king.
Last edited:
- 1
Really though, you don't make any actual points. You just dismiss everything that is contrary to your opinion without being able to cite much in the way of actual historical precedent.
You falsely conflate points (e.g.: trying to treat all empires as if they were the same), argue straw men that no one is making (e.g.: trying to say that I argued that the pope had no influence in Europe), outright dismiss points you don't like (e.g.: the fact that only electors became kingdoms and that even Austria never became a kingdom), and then have the gall to patronize and talk down to people as if you were the intelligent one and they the ignorant ones. The facile attempt to discredit someone because they "type too much" instead of making an actual argument in regards to what is typed on worsens the situation for you. And I'm not just talking about myself either, as several people in this thread have tried to correct you on this (many, in fact, making the exact same points as I to no greater degree of success).
Really, that sort of pseudo-intellectualism really grinds my gears.
But, that being said, until you actually start coughing up evidence and historical precedent to back your claims instead of making demonstrably false claims, demonstrably dishonest claims, and dismissing everything else, I'm done arguing with you.
You falsely conflate points (e.g.: trying to treat all empires as if they were the same), argue straw men that no one is making (e.g.: trying to say that I argued that the pope had no influence in Europe), outright dismiss points you don't like (e.g.: the fact that only electors became kingdoms and that even Austria never became a kingdom), and then have the gall to patronize and talk down to people as if you were the intelligent one and they the ignorant ones. The facile attempt to discredit someone because they "type too much" instead of making an actual argument in regards to what is typed on worsens the situation for you. And I'm not just talking about myself either, as several people in this thread have tried to correct you on this (many, in fact, making the exact same points as I to no greater degree of success).
Really, that sort of pseudo-intellectualism really grinds my gears.
But, that being said, until you actually start coughing up evidence and historical precedent to back your claims instead of making demonstrably false claims, demonstrably dishonest claims, and dismissing everything else, I'm done arguing with you.
Last edited:
- 2
stop whining
- i made all the points, and condensed them several times in various forms. nobody cares but the trolls.
- i cited plenty of refs, again, nobody read them.
- there are no straw men in my arguments, just pseudo-jokes...
- never said the pope had no influence...
- i only patronized the trolls, who, as you can very plainly see in the history, started hurling insults.
- nobody has yet corrected me on a single matter i can recall, only misinterpreted my jokes, and made false reference where the game mechanics don't reflect that.
it's basically a pissing contest to see who can piss history the furthest... that's what it appears like to me...
does not compute.
- 2
One of the rules you all agreed to follow when you signed up to this forum is no swearing.
Warnings issued and thread closed.
Warnings issued and thread closed.