Well, you should be able to. But only when certain conditions are met (and these would be?). After all, several orders were disbanded during the time period of the game.
-
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.
Well, you should be able to. But only when certain conditions are met (and these would be?). After all, several orders were disbanded during the time period of the game.
The order of Calatrava ended as a politic sovereign order in 1487, the last elected GM of the Portugese The Military Order of Christ died in 1417, of The Military Order of St. James of the Sword in 1418. And then we have all the "stillborn" orders like the Wing of St. Michael, the Order of the Ship and the Argonauts of St. Nicholas...Originally posted by Sonny
Other than the Templars which orders were disbanded?
Originally posted by Sonny
I meant real orders.
Thanks.
Hey! I'm sure, with some more luck, the Argonauts of St. Nicholas could have rocked the Levant!
Originally posted by Sonny
You might get on the Pope's bad side if you did that (unless of course you bribed or threatened him). Could stir things up and make for some fun though.
Or if you just happened to have a fellow countryman as pope. The frenchies got a lot of mileage out of that.
I think Normandy should perhaps be a vassal state of England's as William was the supreme King of ENGLAND. This is just my opinion at least.
The Argonauts!? I loved that movie! But how come Jason had to fight the clay skels?
Normandy wasn't vassal of England though, it was vassal of France. It would probably be easier to have two seperate entities, both controlled by one player, Normandy being a vassal of France and England not.
Hmmmm......perhaps, but I do know Normandy was a vassal of France as well...hmmm...I gotta do more research and learn some more before I can really post.
Someone for paradox posted that what is important is power and not titles/legal claims in determining stuff like this.
I would suspect that would make Normandy independent even without England. So I think it should be handled sort of like this: England and Normandy are indistinguishable parts of William the Conquerer's territory. However, William's demense is disproportionately high in England (reflecting England's high degree of centralization) and his demense proportion is too high over all (ie over 1/3, creating loyalty problems). The Norman vassals will also have loyalty to the king of France. The king of France will also have CB shields on Normandy.
A set up like this may cause the loss of French territory. I suspect it would happen faster than historically, but the general trend would be represented and it would fit into what we know about the game.
I would suspect that would make Normandy independent even without England. So I think it should be handled sort of like this: England and Normandy are indistinguishable parts of William the Conquerer's territory. However, William's demense is disproportionately high in England (reflecting England's high degree of centralization) and his demense proportion is too high over all (ie over 1/3, creating loyalty problems). The Norman vassals will also have loyalty to the king of France. The king of France will also have CB shields on Normandy.
A set up like this may cause the loss of French territory. I suspect it would happen faster than historically, but the general trend would be represented and it would fit into what we know about the game.