Empires!

[kevml27]

Okay, I recall reading somewhere that there were 4 Emperor titles: Holy Roman Emperor, Byzantine Emperor, Sunni/Shiite Caliph.

I think there should be more!! Granted, we shouldn't have 25 different emperors running around Europe, but I think a huge region should merit an empire. The ones I'm thinking of right now are:

Emperor of Britannia (King of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland)
Emperor of all Iberia (King of Leon, Castille, Portugal, Aragon, Navarre, Andalusia?)
Czar of Russia (King of Rus,....anything East of Poland really...)
Holy Roman Emperor (King of Germany, Italy, Burgundy, Bohemia)
Emperor of Scandinavia (King of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland)
Byzantine Emperor** (King of Greece, Anatolia, Syria)


** I think that "Byzantium" should be split up. It's just too big of a kingdom that spans too far. I think if you're going to have Byzantium, then rename Greece to Byzantium and make some kingdom titles in Asia Minor.

 

[yellowbiz]

There's the obvious issue that some people will bring up, these "empires" never existed.
I think it can be modded in later.

 

[kevml27]

Granted - but this game isn't 100% historically accurate.

 

[silentio]

I wouldn't be all that surprised if that could be modded in, and probably will be by someone. Also it should note the current Empires in the game are set up for the four major religions of the game: Catholic HRE, Orthodox Byzantium, Sunni Abbasid, Shiite Fatimid.

 

[lemonsquid]

Sure they never existed in our history. But, if any leader had the option when they were in control of these lands, and the Pope for instance granted an Emperor title to one of these regions, it very well could have been in our history. So to say, its not historical dosnt mean that it still shouldnt be in the game. Its a great idea to have something like this, lets be honest, does anyone play Eu, Vic, Hoi or Ck historically, the answer is NO! Even if you tried, the AI certainly never play historically.

 

[Slaxl]

I don't think so, because controlling all of the British isles wouldn't make one an Emperor. An Emperor is special, it denotes vast power and significant territory. Just think about how few Emperors there really were in Europe ever, let alone in this time period. Perhaps if someone conquered 3/4s of the land he could call himself Emperor, but just owning all of Great Britain isn't worth, nor Iberia or Scandanavia in my opinion. A better idea would be ahistorical creatable kingdom titles.

Ooh, my 100th post ^_^

 

[gja102]

This has been raised before, and while it wouldn't be a bad idea to link certain geographically-close titles like Scandinavia, I believe multiple fourth-tier titles won't work in the game engine. Also, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the devs have indicated that the title of 'Emperor' in the Christian world specifically means 'Roman Emperor' - hence HRE and Byzantium, and nothing else. It wouldn't make sense for two true Romes to exist in the same religious group.

It would be cool for the Emperor title to pass to another claimant, if the first were destroyed - as historically happened with Russia.

I also agree that having 'Byzantium' as one indivisible realm feels a bit weird, it would be nice to have King-level titles in Greece, Anatolia etc, which could emerge if the Empire fragmented. However, I know that every attempt to add this into CK1 ended up making Byzantium dissolve into its component kingdoms, so it was kept as a single realm for gameplay purposes.

 

[Jaol]

I like it!

It's important to remember, though, that in the Middle Ages, the title "Emperor" didn't just mean a very powerful monarch; it meant the ruler claimed to be the direct successor of the Roman Emperors through the principle of translatio imperii, making him the secular head of Christendom and special protector of the Church. For this reason, it was generally taken for granted that there could only be 2 Christian Emperors--one in the East and one in the West (i.e. the Latin and Nicean Emperors in the East both claimed to be the true Eastern Emperor and regarded the other as a pretender).

So, while some Kings in Spain did actually claim the title of "Emperor of all Spain" it wasn't widely accepted as a legitimate title. And if a particularly powerful King of England did proclaim himself Emperor of Britain, but this would probably either have been ignored, or treated as a direct challenge to the authority of the HRE.

 

[Wezqu]

Last time I checked Finland is not part of Scandinavia.

 

[lemonsquid]

Last time I checked Finland is not part of Scandinavia.

pretty sure it is. Karelia is not. This is me talking and Vic2s scandy creation.

 

[A_Dane]

Finland is not a part of Scandinavia Scandinavia is Norway, Denmark and Sweden

 

[kevml27]

Okay....so then make it just King of Sweden, Norway and Denmark.....no reason to get your knickers in a twist!

 

[Secret Master]

Well, the Latin Empire is in if you start at the right date, and I didn't see that on your list. And that was an empire that really existed (although, not very long).

 

[Raczynski]

As said, for most of the medieval era it's a complete fiction and at odds with contemporary worldview and law theory. Emperor was supposed to be a secular head of Christendom. You shouldn't have dozens of them running around at the same time.

 

[yourworstnightm]

The emperors are supposed to be the Universal Rulers carrying the legacy of Rome. Another Catholic Empire would be the same as an declaration of war on the Holy Roman Emperor, since you automatically dispute his emperorship by taking that title.

 

[Grayfox]

How would this be implemented since Empire titles have no territories associated?

 

[Hertog Jan]

Scandinavia is often confused with the Nordic countries nowadays. Scandinavia refers to the countries sharing the Scandinavian peninsula. This includes Denmark, because it owned Scania for a long time. The Nordic countries include Scandinavia as well as Iceland and Finland.

I do not think that more Empires should be added. Historical non-existence is not the issue here, but rather the concept of Empire. It already has been pointed out that Empires were based on Roman precedents and the actions of the Papacy. It was Pope Leo III who crowned Charlemagne Roman Emperor, using the Western Roman Empire as a precedent. This event is also the source of the investiture controversy. Did the Pope have the right to invest bishops because he was the Vicar of Christ and had crowned the Emperor? Or did the Emperor, because his Eastern colleague did and because his imperium was inherited from Constantine. The Russian Czars weren't Emperors in their own right either. They could only claim the title because the Byzantine throne was vacant. Their reasoning wasn't: "Hey, we have conquered a lot of land. Lets crown ourselves Emperor!"
Instead it was: "God has granted us rulership over Rus lands, and His favour has passed away from Rome and Constantinople (the second Rome) to us. Thus Moscow is the third Rome". The Russian Czars therefore claimed the same authority Augustus and Constantine had possessed.

 

[Ampersand]

Clearly, it is not understood what the concept of the empire was supposed to be in this period of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_monarchy#Europe Read this to get some idea of what it ought mean and represent.

 

[Strayed4A]

Personally I'd be very interested in what happens in game when a power not of the empires base religion gains the king title tied to the title of Emperor(e.g. a non Roman Catholic King of Germany for HRE). Does the title get destroyed or is a new Empire tag created like say what happened with Byzantium when the Catholics took over (the Latin Empire) or when they finally fell to the Ottomans who where their own empire?

I had already made one of my goals for a play through to become a christian King of Mesopotamia but if it is possible, I'd like to create a new christian empire over the lands of one of the old caliphates.

 

[Suirantes]

I think Portugal is part of the King of Galicia title