Every state in the game should be able to produce vassals of it's own type.

[Veldmaarschalk]

I don't know exactly what the rules in the catholic church are but I doubt if a arch-bishop could just create another bishop see just out of nothing. I don't believe it was in his power to do that.

There weren't that many large (arch-)bishoprics who were also great temporal rulers. A example I know of is the prince-bishop of Sticht in the 11th century, the bishop was also a temporal ruler in much of the low countries in those days, he installed counts in several places, Holland (Kennemerland), Zutphen, Drenthe and the Veluwe f.e., who were his vassals from then on. He didn't create bishops as his vassals.

 

[qvcatullus]

Yet it is reasonable to assume that were an arch-bishops temporal power to grow too great for him to handle personally, he would sub-let the most important positions to bishops rather than secular counts, beacause that way he can mantain his religious power aswell as the bishops are his eccelarsial vassals as well as secular vassals. If he were to give it to the count, then his interests could potentially clash with the local non-temporal bishop, leaving him with his loyalty divided between both of his vassals (in both his roles). Creating lesser bishoprics is not only easier (beacause he moves in those circles already), but also avoids possible difficult to resolve conflicts of interests between bishop and count in the province. It simply makes politically more sense for a temporally reigning arch-bishop to confuse his structures of power and not to take advantage of his dual role in this way.

But generally it's as the title says, I want each kind of ruler to create vassals of it's own type (and with all the same laws), in order so there is three different visions of goverment, fuedal, republican and theocratic all of which have their own structures of power and are able to spread.

I don't think that you could call the regular bishops (that is to say, the plain old, non-land-owning, regular-diocese-administering) the 'vassals' of the archbishop over him. It's not as if the archbishop owns the whole archdiocese and parcels it out to bishops. The relationship among bishops in the middle ages was, to the best of my knowledge, not the same as the relationship among temporal rulers, like a king who, however theoretically, 'owned' his realm and handed it out among others who held it in fief to him. The difference between bishops, archbishops, and the Pope seems to be (theoretically, again) rooted in a concept of a hierarchy of respect, but I will admit that it's too confusing to fully understand all of the nuance. In any case, 'vassalage' per se is a problem for temporal rulers, not ecclesiasts; it only becomes their problem in as much as they are temporal rulers, which is not a necessary component of being an ecclesiast. Most medieval bishops (by far the majority, I should assume, though I can't prove it right now) were not temporal rulers. Thus, I don't imagine that the conflict of interests as you call it ever existed legally/technically-- it's not the archbishop as pastor of the church who has vassals to worry about, it's the lord of the land who also happens to be an archbishop.
In any case, I'll be much more willing to concede the point if anyone can find a stable system of temporal land-holding bishops or archbishops who, in turn, held suzerainty over lesser land-holding bishops. PLEASE NOTE that I mean bishops who hold land as a temporal fiefdom, not the concept of eccelsiastical control over a diocese as presbyter/pastor, which, as I think we have established above, is not what CK models.

 

[Riddermark]

I just say let the damn republics and bishoprics AND archbishoprichs be able to give out titles - I honestly DON'T care what type of vassal just something so they dont spoil the gameplay.

It's not CK2 material clearly as DivineShadow's mod showed us by making muslims hand out titles. So Its a matter of changing itsy bitsy part of code right ?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I just say let the damn republics and bishoprics AND archbishoprichs be able to give out titles - I honestly DON'T care what type of vassal just something so they dont spoil the gameplay.

It's not CK2 material clearly as DivineShadow's mod showed us by making muslims hand out titles. So Its a matter of changing itsy bitsy part of code right ?

Yes, that is the spirit. Maybe this is something for 1.06. Those rulers should be able to hand out title's what kind of titles isn't that important.

 

[unmerged(47151)]

don't know exactly what the rules in the catholic church are but I doubt if a arch-bishop could just create another bishop see just out of nothing. I don't believe it was in his power to do that.

There weren't that many large (arch-)bishoprics who were also great temporal rulers. A example I know of is the prince-bishop of Sticht in the 11th century, the bishop was also a temporal ruler in much of the low countries in those days, he installed counts in several places, Holland (Kennemerland), Zutphen, Drenthe and the Veluwe f.e., who were his vassals from then on. He didn't create bishops as his vassals.

It's generally not known for bishops to establish large empires in history, but they can and often do in CK. It sort of makes sense that a successful and powerful arch-bishop empire would set up lesser bishoprics, beacause other bishops are attracted to emulate him and become theocrats aswell.

But if there are no eccelarsial educated courtiers around, they should create counties. I've changed my mind on this.

I just say let the damn republics and bishoprics AND archbishoprichs be able to give out titles - I honestly DON'T care what type of vassal just something so they dont spoil the gameplay.

It's not CK2 material clearly as DivineShadow's mod showed us by making muslims hand out titles. So Its a matter of changing itsy bitsy part of code right ?

I'd like to see republics set up republics at the very least. And the other point in this post, is that the laws of all vassals should start out exactly the same as the state that created them.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I'd like to see republics set up republics at the very least. And the other point in this post, is that the laws of all vassals should start out exactly the same as the state that created them.

I don't see republics being so determined to set up republics in its domain. In fact quite the opposite in this era because that way it makes even more certain that only specific families will likely be elected to the head position.

 

[qvcatullus]

Let me make it clear that despite the fact that I don't think archbishops should create only bishop vassals (I reserve judgment on republics until I can do a bit more research on the topic, as I'm stuck with classical Rome here), I do wholeheartedly agree with the other half of Cliffracer's idea -- archbishops and probably republics should be able to (and forced to) create SOME kind of vassal just like normal rulers. If one duke can't effectively run 8 provinces, then an archbishop should surely be no more able to do so...

 

[unmerged(47151)]

I don't see republics being so determined to set up republics in its domain. In fact quite the opposite in this era because that way it makes even more certain that only specific families will likely be elected to the head position.

Republics set up governers and magistrates to rule outlying territories, unless there is an already existing local hereditary aristocracy to rule those territories on the republics behalf. When republics create new administrations utterly from scratch, they invariably create republics.

Given the duke level title for a republic is governer and count level is magistrate republican vassals make sense. Governers are usually appointed by the electorate, either of the central electerate (as in Venice) or by the local electorate of the state.

Republics give administation over to governers and magistrates, both of these are titles in the game. Given republics can pick up fuedal vassals as normal, there is no need for them to actually create new vassals of that type.

Republics appoint governers to rule farflying territories on behalf of the republic, this is what lesser republics represent.

Ideally holders of fuedal titles should be barred from inheriting in a republic, as this would create a constitutional crisis, and the electorate wants to keep it's grasp on power.

 

[unmerged(47151)]

I don't see republics being so determined to set up republics in its domain. In fact quite the opposite in this era because that way it makes even more certain that only specific families will likely be elected to the head position.

But there's no ensuring that those specific families will control their republics beyond 1 generation. With aristocratic titles, this is not the case. I can't see what you mean.

 

[unmerged(24980)]

Exactly, in order to administer his vast territories our budding theocrat is going to have to hand out the task of governing the outlying areas to fellow men of the cloth. Hence vassal bishoprics would be created.

Why? Historically, in the HRE (which is where the vast majority of land-holding archibisophrics were) most of the vassals were secular.

 

[unmerged(24980)]

Myself, I think that the biggest problem with the system is that since the normal structure of the archbishops and bishops of the church is abstracted in-game, the pool of papabiles in the game is far too small.

Especially since most popes were Cardinals, and usually either Italian or French. (Maybe CK2 will have the papal schism?)

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Republics set up governers and magistrates to rule outlying territories, unless there is an already existing local hereditary aristocracy to rule those territories on the republics behalf. When republics create new administrations utterly from scratch, they invariably create republics.

Given the duke level title for a republic is governer and count level is magistrate republican vassals make sense. Governers are usually appointed by the electorate, either of the central electerate (as in Venice) or by the local electorate of the state.

Republics give administation over to governers and magistrates, both of these are titles in the game. Given republics can pick up fuedal vassals as normal, there is no need for them to actually create new vassals of that type.

Republics appoint governers to rule farflying territories on behalf of the republic, this is what lesser republics represent.

Ideally holders of fuedal titles should be barred from inheriting in a republic, as this would create a constitutional crisis, and the electorate wants to keep it's grasp on power.

If we go into the future, this is most certainly the case, but more than making like-minded scoiety, security of its realm, including security i knowing the next ruler won't be some radical who will want to break away is more important than idealogy, especially in this era. If its someplace close to home, it would be more likely to be a republic because they'd be able to move in quicker and seize control faster if need be, but in far-flung areas, that's not always the case and with a monarchy you atleast have an idea who will likely inherit for some time and can get some preparation just incase.

 

[unmerged(47151)]

If we go into the future, this is most certainly the case, but more than making like-minded scoiety, security of its realm, including security i knowing the next ruler won't be some radical who will want to break away is more important than idealogy, especially in this era. If its someplace close to home, it would be more likely to be a republic because they'd be able to move in quicker and seize control faster if need be, but in far-flung areas, that's not always the case and with a monarchy you atleast have an idea who will likely inherit for some time and can get some preparation just incase.

This system actually existed in Venice, indeed it's what stopped the Venitian Doge from making himself emporer of Byzantium when the puppet emporer that they put up to rule got overthrown by a revolt.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

This system actually existed in Venice, indeed it's what stopped the Venitian Doge from making himself emporer of Byzantium when the puppet emporer that they put up to rule got overthrown by a revolt.

Venice is hardly an example we should be using for a feudal type setup.

 

[qvcatullus]

Venice is hardly an example we should be using for a feudal type setup.

I was involved in this argument earlier, but I missed the point of a couple of the back and forth posts; I have at this point lost track of what point each of us is trying to make -- I think Venice was being used as an example of how REPUBLICS should behave in game, but I can't figure out what argument that is meant to support. Would everyone care to restate the main point that they're trying to make?

 

[unmerged(47151)]

I was involved in this argument earlier, but I missed the point of a couple of the back and forth posts; I have at this point lost track of what point each of us is trying to make -- I think Venice was being used as an example of how REPUBLICS should behave in game, but I can't figure out what argument that is meant to support. Would everyone care to restate the main point that they're trying to make?

That republics should set up vassal republics is the answer. And that fuedal vassals should be able to inherit through elective, but fortunately this appears to already be the case.