Emperor must be better than King

[fanoI]

In my opinion Emperor should be the highest title a ruler could gain (after that it could be the Papacy if the Emperor it's Catholic and has the grace to recognize this... not always true in the Medieval age!) but in the game it not seems this: after I gained to unite all HRE, I expected my King to be crowned at Aquisgrana Roman Emperor, but nothing happened he remained "King of the Holy Roman Empire" (who note it has no sense? King of an Empire? In the end make more sense "President" of Lord Protector :wacko: )

So I had to change from Absolute Monarchy to a poorer government form (in game terms at least): "Despotic Monarchy" and after some years my King could take the "Adopt Imperial Administration" decision and be recognized as Emperor...

The game regarded me saying something as "... if our country become much developed we could obtain a more prestigious government form an you Emperor will be a King"!

What? He is an Emperor what prestige he need?

Maybe the problem is that in the game there's only 2 Imperial Government form:

1. Emperor in the Roman sense, an Overpowered Military Dictator that overthrown some "democratic" Republican government form (Rome Republic) or a symbolic Theocratic ruler (China / Japan in some way the Byzantine Emperor, too). In this sense a King that is a "real" monarchy it's a more prestigious and modern government form...
2. Revolutionary Emperor, there was a revolution in that country a Republic was created and then a "Consul" become so powerful to become Emperor (yes this the Napoleon's story... it could be adapted stretching a little to the Third Deutschland Reich, too )

The third form of Empire could be seen as a "reaction" to the Napoleon one... the Archduke of Austria and King of Hungary after Napoleon dismantled the Holy Roman Empire, became Emperor of Austria-Hungary, do you think he tough to have lose "prestige" to be Emperor and no more a King (or Archduke as I liked to be called) ?

When Queen Victoria take the Imperial Crown of India and become Empress of Great Britain, India, Canada, Australia and so on you think she tough to have lose "prestige" to be Empress and no more a Queen?

When King Vittorio Emanuele III take the Ethiopia Imperial Crown and become Emperor of Italy he tough to have lose "prestige" to be Emperor and no more a King (well in this case I'm unsure he had some "prestige" to lose... he was Mussolini the real "king" of Italy in the end)?

When the Russian Duke of Muskowy decided to vassalize and than unite on his rule all Russian Kingdoms and become Emperor (Zar) or all the Russies he tough to have lose "prestige" to be Emperor and no more a Duke? In this case there's remand to Rome but in the title only (Zar --> CZar --> Ceasar).

I say NO for none of them...

An Emperor in this accepion it's not "an Overpowered Military Dictator that overthrown some "democratic" Republican government form" or a "Revolutionary Emperor" but a man recognized as a ruler of not only a nation but a lot of nations in which he is by right the "King" for this he is "the Emperor", so an Emperor of HRE is the "Emperor" because he is not only King of its nation but now he has inherited all the Kingdom of Germany (and if he played good his cards all that of Europe) he is "The King of the Kings": the ruler of the world... if someone call him "King" his head would be cut !

So what you thing of this? Should not be this "third" Empire represented?

Maybe in Europa can be taken only if HRE not existed anymore of you're the HRE Emperor to be more historical... it could be a new casus belli for this... "Should be only an Emperor in the World!".

What do you think of my idea?

 

[Kurblius]

Um, the Emperor of the Glorious Byzantine Empire at this time was basically a one province minor... and a byzantine government is a byword for inexplicable bureaucratic obscurism. So I'm not buying the concept that an empire is necessarily a better form of government.

 

[Felicity]

I honestly think this has a lot lost in translation between a gajillion european languages.

 

[Mods]

Some kings or dictators crowned themselves emperor for prestige or making themselves feel more important, they were still kings and their governments weren't better or special just because of that.

 

[fanoI]

With "better" I intended for the ruler point of view, obviusly not from the subject point of view!
For "us" the better government could be "Costitutional Republic" (oh well NOT as it works in Italy!) but not for HIM...

But let Bizantium alone it's an anomaly as I said the title "Emperor" in the sense I'm intending it's more "modern" (let say after 1700) thing as I said think of Emperor of Austria - Hungary, Empress Victoria of Great Britain, India and so on... the Zar (Emperor) of all the Russies and so on...

A definiton of this form of Empire could be "Autocratic Empire" to distinguish it from the Roman age Empire (Rome, Bizantium, Holy Roman Empire, Japan...) and from the Napoleon's Revolutionary Empire.

 

[Felicity]

I'm sure most people would say Queen Victoria rather than Empress.

I really think it has to do with translation.

I do agree the HRE should probably get an automatic government change to Empire.

 

[Serzis]

The HRE already has an imperial title with benefits, it's just that it's a 'modifier' rather than a 'form of government' -- something that is actually an excellent representation of the historical situation. Ergo, there is a third 'empire' title and it is the only one that provides prestige, namely + 1 % per year, among other benifits. So in practice, you can claim that the position as HREmperor carries with it an assumed position as the highest of all offices, although it's not the greatest for governing a realm -- again, like in the real world.

That 'Emperor of the HRE' is a modifier, rather than a government type, works quite well with the fact that the emperor always held at least two titles. The rulers of Austria were often Archdukes of Austria and Imperator Romanus Sacer. I do, however, agree, that actually forming the HRE should not remove the imperial modifier, though only the prestige increase would remain when the reichdag has been disbanded.

Furthermore, when we say king/archduke -- in the sense of "feudal monarch" -- it's good to point out that this is not meant to represent a title in the simple sense (e.g Empress of India), but rather how the realm is being governed. An unfortunate choice of words in-game. Austria can thus hold a prestigious title of emperor and still grant the nobles privilege for force limit. When Russia unites and claims the imperial government through a decision, this is meant to represent the new era of assumed central authority -- though the title (Czar) alludes to a prestigious Roman continuity.

 

[rossBurglar]

Empress Victoria of Great Britain, India and so on...

Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India. The latter title being added so she didn't have a rank lower than her daughter who was about to become Empress of Germany

 

[Serzis]

But let Bizantium alone it's an anomaly as I said the title "Emperor" in the sense I'm intending it's more "modern" (let say after 1700) thing as I said think of Emperor of Austria - Hungary, Empress Victoria of Great Britain, India and so on... the Zar (Emperor) of all the Russies and so on...

A definiton of this form of Empire could be "Autocratic Empire" to distinguish it from the Roman age Empire (Rome, Bizantium, Holy Roman Empire, Japan...) and from the Napoleon's Revolutionary Empire.

As a lot of people pointed out, this really has to do with translations and semantics. The oriental empires are entirely semantic constructions as, for example, the titles of the Chinese 'Emperor' was really more analogous to King, Hegemon or Ruler of the Realm. English seems to lack words for certain national varieties and sometimes construct terms all together. For example, there was never a "Swedish Empire" in title, but perhaps in structure, and the concept doesn't exist outside of English history [overstating it a little, here]. The word "Reich" is as complex as the Chinese "Guo."

On the issue of a "late empire," that would correspond to the semantic diplomatic use of 19th century, diluting the claim of being a successor to Rome and replacing it with a title of prestige (Korean Empire 1897!). Still, those titles seldom heralded real political change and they are thus unfit in the context of EU3's 'forms of goverment'-set up. The system is more readily implemented in CKII where a title such as "King of the Wends" does not so much claim authority over a piece of land as it semantically elevates the possessor of this created title to a higher level in diplomatic contexts (prestige). I really hope for a title system in EU4, but it doesn't work in EU3.

 

[ajsciri4]

"The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire."

There is your answer.

 

[fanoI]

Yes I do know that meme... but in the game for sure you can gain:

1. Roman if your capital is ROME
2. Empire after the unification for sure (and if you want when all HRE's nations are Emperor's Vassals the Empire is an Empire again)
3. Holy you could become a Theocracy or to be "more" Holy the Pope directly

So?

I continue to think that Emperor is an higher title than king... and a King could be a vassal of an Emperor, too...

 

[chals]

Come on - It is just a tittle that is higher then King - and need more land to claim.. So let say you have France+Germany and spain - you shoud be able to proclaim yourself so.. Raise in rank.

 

[Hakomar]

Did the title Empire not come from Roman authority, i.e. the successor of the Roman Empire? The Byzantine Empire, a modern 'exonym' for the medieval Eastern Roman Empire, claimed to be the Empire after the Western half crumbled; whilst the Holy Roman Empire clearly used Roman influence to name itself an Empire. The Bulgarians and Serbians all used the title Emperor in their early history, specifically Emperor of the Bulgarians/Serbians & Greeks, indicating continuous use of Roman tradition. One need not describe Russian Tsardom and the relationship with the Third Rome. The Ottoman Empire too contested the throne, as wanting to be the successor of the Roman Empire after the crushing of Byzantium. The title itself was Tsar, which is similar to the German Kaiser, and both derive from Caesar. The Roman authority cannot be clearer.
It would seem to me that only until Napoleon did the title of Emperor have non-Roman connotations, and even then his coronation was in the style of Roman and Frankish ceremony. After that, it would seem to me to be a free for all in terms of Emperor title.
Perhaps Empire should be a more reserved term, considering the time period.

 

[fanoI]

Yes the HRE and Byzantium Emperor were the ideal continuation of the Roman Empire, so that Emperor title should be intended in Roman's terms (by the way I'm unsure it worst of Absolute Monarchy in the end... Emperor it continues to seem more prestigious in my mind than King), but after Napoleon and its cancellation of the last remnant of the Roman Empire the Emperor title changed sense first, as correctly says the game, we had "The Revolutionary Empire", then the Austrian Empire (and Russian Empire and Deutshland Empire and British Empire and so on...), so this is a third type of Empire that I called without a better name "The Autocratic Empire".

Maybe it is after 1821 (so too late for the game) but it existed for sure.

I'm right too than China and Japan aren't Empires for real that translations are incorrect :laugh:

P.S. Nothing impeding us to do this... what to do you think of an "Adopt Autocratic Administration" decision? Requirements are to be Absolute Monarchy, to posses at least 50 cities (to see if HRE should exists or not), ruler become an Emperor (obviously) administrative efficiency 1.9 bonus discipline = 0.15 officials = 2.0 :laugh:

 

[Memento Mori]

Yes I do know that meme... but in the game for sure you can gain:

1. Roman if your capital is ROME
2. Empire after the unification for sure (and if you want when all HRE's nations are Emperor's Vassals the Empire is an Empire again)
3. Holy you could become a Theocracy or to be "more" Holy the Pope directly

So?

I continue to think that Emperor is an higher title than king... and a King could be a vassal of an Emperor, too...

I just have to shamelessly advertise an aar who does all of the aforementioned things (and quite a few more!), which I gave inspiration for a couple of months ago. The aar shows that it is possible not only to have a legitimate Holy Roman Empire, but a Holy Roman Empire squared


http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?630467-The-Holy-Roman-Empire-Squared-A-history-blog-AAR