hmmm, i noticed that sigurd the crusader is not king during the dates he is but instead his brother is, is there any reason for this? sigurd is credited with bringing a golden age to norway.
great nowegian crusader king.
- Thread starter Jak9090
- 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.
The problem is that the game doesn't allow for co-kings. After the death of their father, Magnus Barefoot, in 1103 Sigurd and his two brothers Øystein and Olav were all taken as kings of Norway. They didn't divide the country (as in gavelkind succession), they ruled Norway together. Olav died in 1115, Øystein in 1123, and Sigurd ruled alone until his death in 1130.
Sigurd is known for his travel to Jerusalem, it was his brother Øystein who stayed at home in Norway and actually ruled and developed the country. Sigurds death in 1130 marks the start of 100 years of civil war in Norway. For the next 70 years no Norwegian king dies of natural causes
Sigurd is known for his travel to Jerusalem, it was his brother Øystein who stayed at home in Norway and actually ruled and developed the country. Sigurds death in 1130 marks the start of 100 years of civil war in Norway. For the next 70 years no Norwegian king dies of natural causes
Exactly this, which is a bit unfortunate. Co-King-ing would be a neat feature.
And I'd be far quicker to credit Jorsalfare with ushering in an era of unceasing civil war, rather than a Golden Era
Though during his life it wasn't so bad apparently, it really DID go all poo-poo afterwards.
that's a shame but understandable, i hope in the future paradox works out a way to do co rulers, would be good for a potential rome sequal too.
Co/junior kings would be awesome, but the problem of course is succession. You can only really have one successor and so two kings with two different heirs would be very glitch-prone.
I think the best way to implement it would be to make co-king a special title, giving you the same (or very similar) prestige and rank as the normal king, which would be useful for things such as marriage, as you'd be able to marry people you wouldn't previously have been able to.
That would be a good (though imperfect) solution to the problem as it wouldn't influence the succession. Usually a co or junior king would be an heir anyway.
This would bring questions, though. Should these kings use regnal numbers and be listed as historical kings? What other abilities would they have?
I like the idea of being able to start a war against a ruling king if you have a weak claim, and then being made co-king if you win. It all comes back to the succession, though, and I think that's where problems come in.
I think the best way to implement it would be to make co-king a special title, giving you the same (or very similar) prestige and rank as the normal king, which would be useful for things such as marriage, as you'd be able to marry people you wouldn't previously have been able to.
That would be a good (though imperfect) solution to the problem as it wouldn't influence the succession. Usually a co or junior king would be an heir anyway.
This would bring questions, though. Should these kings use regnal numbers and be listed as historical kings? What other abilities would they have?
I like the idea of being able to start a war against a ruling king if you have a weak claim, and then being made co-king if you win. It all comes back to the succession, though, and I think that's where problems come in.
Indeed it would. On the other hand, if you start with Jorsalfare (though he sadly lacks the epithet) your position is pretty neat. You personally own all of Norway and the Faeros (17 Counties) and have the Scottish Duke of Isles as a vassal, plus you've got a bastard soin you can just legitimize to ensure the succession.
Why does Sigurd own all of Norway? 17 counties is an absurd number and obviously damages him until he gives a load of them away. Should there not be historical vassals in there somewhere?
Probably yes. My guess is that it comes down to the differences in Scandinavian Feudalism. The landowners were often large families. Their power was more cumultative than hierarchical. So unlike in France or Germany it might be difficult to identify who should hold what unless there were one family holding most in a region.
Or they were lazy Swedes. The latter might be entirely more likely. They do it to mock us, you know. >_>
Or they were lazy Swedes. The latter might be entirely more likely. They do it to mock us, you know. >_>
If you're aware of any relevant families who should rule Norwegian provinces between 1066 - 1337 then you should report them in the bug forum. It really can't be WAD that the king should personally control the entire kingdom.
I only noticed the issue just now, so I can't really say one way or another. I'll give it a think and report as needed of course.
Well, any excuse to visit the archive is a good one as far as I'm concerned
It strikes me though, that some of this might be better handled by non-feudal lordships. Bergen and Nidaros might be better of under a Lord Mayor and a Prince Bishop.
It strikes me though, that some of this might be better handled by non-feudal lordships. Bergen and Nidaros might be better of under a Lord Mayor and a Prince Bishop.
Didnt Sigurd supposedly kill his brother? Would it be difficult to implement an event, or have Sigurd have lots of intrugue and plot together with supporters? Or start a 'Sigurd for Norway' plot?
Wrong Sigurd. You're thinking of one Sigurd "Slembe" who claims kinship with Harald IV Magnusson Gille (who himself had blinded and mutilated the son and heir of King Sigurd I Jorsalfare, Magnus (thereafter known as "the Blind")) and after that one refused the kinship claim, killed him as Harald slept. This was the real start of the Civil War era and happened in 1136. Both Sigurd "Slembe" and Harald Gille claimed to have been sons of Magnus III Berrføtt (Bare Feet) Olavsson, but the veracity of those claims are... disputed.
The brother of Sigurd I Magnusson Jorsalfare, Øystein I Magnusson, died in 1123 in Romerike during a feast or some other guesting.
EDIT: And just for the fun of the telling
Magnus IV Sigurdsson den Blinde was (after being captured by Harald Gille) blinded, castrated and had a foot cut off. Now THAT'S how you deal with political enemies! They should add "Maim" to the list of things you can do to prisoners, and let you do all of them before release. More historical that way... apparently.
Last edited:
Think the Byzantine DLC has some events like that, don't know if it was because it was taboo to kill your own blood there too.
This situation would only be correct after both of Sigurds brothers were dead (after 1123). I do not think it would be correct to say that Sigurd held all counties himself. Rather the Norwegian kings at least before 1150 had few personal holdings. The title king basically meant that all the "chiefs" of Norway were supposed to fight for the king.
I got no idea how or if it is possible to implement this in the game. Ideally each king should be able to raise the levies of the country, if more then one of them try to raise them, the vassals should answer to the king they like the most. Naturally the kingdom of Norway had a very low crown authority at this time.