Iberia

[unmerged(5822)]

I say it's ahistorical, and that it would make those dukes you propose (Leon, Castilla, Aragon) much weaker... that's bad because they'd end up conquered by the muslims once and again.

Why would they become "much weaker"?

Well, it actually happened in the early 1100's. Alfonso I, king of Aragon, was also king of Navarra and later, thru marriage, king of Castilla and king of Leon, uniting more than 3/4 of christian lands in Iberia. The kingdoms split apart after that, anyway. So... well, it's doubtful that it would.

That situation was not really similar to the one at the time of Spain's creation - they only cover some 40% of Iberia at that time.

It wouldn't be that bad if the kingdom already existed at the begginig of the game (just like France of Germany)... but if it doesn't, then it'd be imposible to recreate for the AI. So we'd have no kingdom of Spain and, also, no actual historical kingdoms either.

I've seen Russia form several times... and the odds should be somewhat comparable (except that Spain wouldn't have to deal with the Mongols and have much fewer Christians to conquer).

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Also you would never see catalonia merge with Aragon. And remember people we talk in here about balance not just kingdom setup! Aragon always dies and never merges with catalonia....I think we should find a way to make sure they both survive up until the merger...not try to make the merger not happen!

How did the merger happen, historically?
Did the ruler of Catalonia/Barcelona merrily offer his services to the king of Aragon in 1070?

 

[tommassi]

Why would they become "much weaker"?

Because of the "bonification" the kings have to keep more provinces as demesne. Dukes can keep less, so they would need to have more vassals (or less income, if the AI chooses to keep the provinces anyway). And, the more vassals, the more chances of getting some of them rebellious... which leads to more intra-realm fighting, which ultimately leads to more chances for an outside enemy to attack and actually win the war.

That situation was not really similar to the one at the time of Spain's creation - they only cover some 40% of Iberia at that time.

You said it. The situation was not really similar, so it's quite a stretch to think that what happened in 1500 would work in 1100 or 1200 Apart from that, I don't think that having 40% or 75% or Iberia did matter at the time to merge all four kingdoms. The thing is they had the chance to do it (Alfonso died with no heirs and it was the "parliaments" of Aragon and Navarra that chose a different king, actually parting ways with each other and with Castile and Leon).

 

[tommassi]

How did the merger happen, historically?
Did the ruler of Catalonia/Barcelona merrily offer his services to the king of Aragon in 1070?

Now that I see this... Some of us proposed in the claimable kingdom/duchy setup thread that, in the 1066 scenario, Aragon started as a plain duke, just the same as Catalonia.

Since the kingdom of Aragon was just 30 years old by then, and it wasn't really powerful (and just one province in CK) it wouldn't be a big problem historically... and it would prevent Catalonia (now duchy of Barcelona, acording to the changes mande in the other thread) from pledging allegiance to a king far less powerful than itself

 

[unmerged(42550)]

Just a note:

The title King of spain it wasn´t used until Felipe II and after gaining the crown of protugal, so it is far away from the scope of the game, if there could be something like empire level it could be but from the point of view of the time of the game nothing to do, and the kings in spain were as regarded as anyone in the rest of the world.


And the union of aragon and Barcelona. The king was Ramiro II the monk, he reigned for 3 years, 1134 and 1137, he recieved the kingdom after the death of his brother, he was bishop by that time, left his monastic vows to reign and marry, once he had a daughter he married her at the age of two with Ramon berenguer, count of barcelona and then abdicated in favor of his daughter (and the husband) and returned to the church.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Well, you cand find historical evidence in any historical atlas: the borders of Castilla and Aragon were exactly those arranged in Tudilen in 1154. And when in 1296 Aragon conquered Murcia, it had to be handed over to Castilla because of that treaty and the one signed in Cazorla by 117x.

As for the recognition outside Iberia, maybe the Pope suits you well: the Papacy considered the "war" against the moors in Iberia a crusade and recognised that all the lands conquered in that crusade would go to Castilla.

I'm still waiting for historical evidence on that southern iberian southern kingdom (no to talk about those "christian taifas" that tried to get independence and slowed the pace of Reconquista).

The Pope's orders were ignored when it suited king's interest enough and if the end result was the explusion of Muslims its hard to see how the Pope would have raised more than a passing remark. The Pope also decreed that crusade against Byzantium FE, was not to be, but when they saw the results then did an about face. I have no reason to think they'd see things any different for Iberia. History has shown that when the benifits are seen by Popes, then tend to ignore any of their prior objections.

And you have yet to give any historic evidence of how that the treaty did anything more than essentially give claims to Castile.

As to a southern Iberian kingdom, there is nothing more than a Kingdom of Persia. If you can come up with historic evidence for a chrisitan Perisan kingdom, i'll do the same for a southern Iberian one. The only actual evidence predates the Muslim conquest and that has to do with the southern region which was given aid by Justinius I of Byzantium against the Visigoths. But as Duuk said, its not all about history, unless you can give me historical evidence of the Kingdom of North Africa, or the Kingdom of Persia.


And i atleast agree that a K. of Spain isn't right. It might be different if there were an emperor tier and an "E. of Spain" so-to-speak.

 

[tommassi]

The Pope's orders were ignored when it suited king's interest enough and if the end result was the explusion of Muslims its hard to see how the Pope would have raised more than a passing remark. The Pope also decreed that crusade against Byzantium FE, was not to be, but when they saw the results then did an about face. I have no reason to think they'd see things any different for Iberia. History has shown that when the benifits are seen by Popes, then tend to ignore any of their prior objections.

Actually, the few crusaders that did come to Iberia fought for the christian kings (as in 1212), so, well...

And you have yet to give any historic evidence of how that the treaty did anything more than essentially give claims to Castile.

Ehm... I've been saying all the time that the treaty, actually... gave claims!! Nothing else. Yet, those claims are much more than any other kingdom had... so you want me to give historical evidence of something I'm not saying? :wacko:

As to a southern Iberian kingdom, there is nothing more than a Kingdom of Persia. If you can come up with historic evidence for a chrisitan Perisan kingdom, i'll do the same for a southern Iberian one. The only actual evidence predates the Muslim conquest and that has to do with the southern region which was given aid by Justinius I of Byzantium against the Visigoths. But as Duuk said, its not all about history, unless you can give me historical evidence of the Kingdom of North Africa, or the Kingdom of Persia.

Am I talking about Persia? or North Africa? I know nothing about all that. If that's against history, then you know what to do. I just talk about what I know for sure. So don't even try to use Persia or North Africa or Finland as an argument... because I'm not tlaking about those. I'm talking about Iberia, that's it.

And i atleast agree that a K. of Spain isn't right. It might be different if there were an emperor tier and an "E. of Spain" so-to-speak.

Well, actually, there was an Emperor of Spain in the middle ages (Imperator Hispaniorum)... Alfonso VII of Leon and Castilla, who also tried to press a claim to the kingdom of Aragon. But never again no one tried to get that title, and it was more of a prestige thing than real power... so... well, little historical evidence to support that Emperor (it would be a funny idea, though )

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Actually, the few crusaders that did come to Iberia fought for the christian kings (as in 1212), so, well...

So? This isn't a pure historic sim like EU2. No reason to think it might have been different had circumstances made it that way.

Ehm... I've been saying all the time that the treaty, actually... gave claims!! Nothing else. Yet, those claims are much more than any other kingdom had... so you want me to give historical evidence of something I'm not saying? :wacko:

I'm saying the claims alone are not enough to base default kingdom setups because of the mechanics that go around it.

Am I talking about Persia? or North Africa? I know nothing about all that. If that's against history, then you know what to do. I just talk about what I know for sure. So don't even try to use Persia or North Africa or Finland as an argument... because I'm not tlaking about those. I'm talking about Iberia, that's it.

You're talking that a K. of [Insert southern Iberian name here] is fantasy. I'm citing them to you because you seem to think only historic kingdoms can exist, so if that's your case, well then i suggest we remove all those kingdoms as well.

Well, actually, there was an Emperor of Spain in the middle ages (Imperator Hispaniorum)... Alfonso VII of Leon and Castilla, who also tried to press a claim to the kingdom of Aragon. But never again no one tried to get that title, and it was more of a prestige thing than real power... so... well, little historical evidence to support that Emperor (it would be a funny idea, though )

Yea and we don't have an Emperor tier.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Fantasy kingdoms can only exist in Christian vacuum.

 

[tommassi]

So? This isn't a pure historic sim like EU2. No reason to think it might have been different had circumstances made it that way.

The game evolves in a way that changes history, but the setup should be as historical as possible.

I'm saying the claims alone are not enough to base default kingdom setups because of the mechanics that go around it.

Once again, maybe reading what I write would be a nice idea. It's not only claims... it's claims AND 200 years of actually having those lands as part of the realm. Did any other kingdom have claims on those lands? NO. Did any other christian kingdom actually own them? NO

You're talking that a K. of [Insert southern Iberian name here] is fantasy. I'm citing them to you because you seem to think only historic kingdoms can exist, so if that's your case, well then i suggest we remove all those kingdoms as well.

I think that there's no room for fantasy kingdoms in Iberia, where we have well documented, internationally recognised, pretty powerful historical kingdoms. As for the other areas, again, i won't talk about them 'cos, to be honest, i have no idea. I guess there's people in these forums much more suited for that task.

 

[Duuk]

Fantasy kingdoms can only exist in Christian vacuum.

Southern Iberia is a Christian vacuum.

 

[unmerged(51332)]

Something needs to be done with the stupid ass counts. I was playing as castille and they declared war on Toledo which was double my strength. I just left in disgust. Oh and too boot it was the county of Molina....he had 45 men.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Southern Iberia is a Christian vacuum.

Christian vacuum is a land of no christian presence at all.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Christian vacuum is a land of no christian presence at all.

Granada is a cChristian vacuum then.

I will comment tomorrow on a computer that doesn't reboot randomly on me (so i can post some longer responses).

 

[Lucius Sulla]

Remember, people, that we should always keep in mind all three scenarios. In this case, specially the third one.

If so... well, think of this map, the 1300 line:

(The map is not very good... for example Toledo is awfully north, but since it was not Spanish-made, I preferred to use it)

It makes no sense that, let's say, the count of Sevilla or the count of Cordoba not to have the same in-game mechanisms that the Count of Tolouse or the Count of Montpellier have in regard to France (and they were acquired by those crowns in not too far apart dates).

This should be the minimum the initial christian kingdoms setup in Iberia should cover. If you notice, the territory covered by the Kingdom of Granada is only four provinces: Granada, Almeria, Malaga and (EDIT)Algeciras. Question is... are we going to create a fantasy kingdom for four provinces? Would the king of Castilla and Leon not have all the right of the world in the Hundred War scenario not to get incredibly pissed if another christian power would come to conquer what is in all regards a client kingdom which he does not squash because he prefers to just get the money of the taxes, thank you?

EDIT: Finally it was Cadiz, not Algeciras... I was thinking of Cadiz, since it is now part of the Cadiz province.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

Granada is a cChristian vacuum then.

I will comment tomorrow on a computer that doesn't reboot randomly on me (so i can post some longer responses).

No. Three or four provinces are. The rest isn't. And we had the rule a fantasy Kingdom has to be bigger than that. So it's either none or part of Castile. And new none Kingdoms is not really what we want.

 

[Third Angel]

If a Christian vacuum is to be defined as a land where no christian presence occured between 1066 and 1453, then only Malaga (167), Almeria (168) and Granada (180) fit this requirement. As no one wants to have a three-provinces fantasy kingdom, I think that settles it.

As a note, Cadiz (165) was taken in 1263, and Algeciras (166) only in 1343.

 

[tommassi]

If you notice, the territory covered by the Kingdom of Granada is only four provinces: Granada, Almeria, Malaga and Cadiz (and again, Cadiz is debatable... I think, but I'm not sure, it was conquered before the start of the third scenario).

Cádiz was conquered back by 1262. The border between Castilla and Granada was around Algeciras (muslim till late in the XIVth century) Jerez and Medina Sidonia (both christian from 1260-1270). That means most of the province of Cádiz was part of Castilla much sooner that the latest scenario starts..

So, Granada would have just three provinces, too few to grant a fantasy kingdom.

EDIT: Uhm... Third Angel was faster

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Cádiz was conquered back by 1262. The border between Castilla and Granada was around Algeciras (muslim till late in the XIVth century) Jerez and Medina Sidonia (both christian from 1260-1270). That means most of the province of Cádiz was part of Castilla much sooner that the latest scenario starts..

So, Granada would have just three provinces, too few to grant a fantasy kingdom.

EDIT: Uhm... Third Angel was faster

That would only be for a "NONE" territory you could claim it for. When we're looking for a kingdom, especially smaller ones, we try to find the greatest extent, not the smallest.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

That would only be for a "NONE" territory you could claim it for. When we're looking for a kingdom, especially smaller ones, we try to find the greatest extent, not the smallest.

Ok, make that a grand 4 provinces: Granada, Malaga, Almeria and Algeciras. Still too few for a kingdom. Of course, I guess when you say applying the greatest extent for a kingdom, you will apply the same policy to Castilla. It would not be fair otherwise, I feel...