Odd title, I know, but it's Crusader Kings. I think most of us are used to these discussions by now.
I've been reading a bit about genetic traits and the capability for dynasties in CK3 to use inbreeding to stack genetic traits faster. I've seen some people in discussions here or there say that inbreeding should never be a positive, that it should yield deformity. That it shouldn't be possible to stack the Beautiful trait through inbreeding, for example. Now I haven't heard this so much here, but I'm posting it here because I feel of all the venues for CK3 discussion, this one is the most legitimate. Most everyone here actually has a heartfelt interest in history and historical accuracy, so I respect the folks here more than I do Reddit or Steam.
I'd like to lead off by saying that to my knowledge, the Habsburg Dynasty is the only go-to example of this. There are articles all over the internet about "the cost of royal inbreeding", and Charles II of Spain is the image that's always used to advertise the point. I'm sure most all of us have seen it by now.
However, a user posted this image in another thread recently:
This is the one that got me thinking. Immediately, what I see is that Charles II's features are by far the most exaggerated. I'd also like to note that not all of the inbred figures in his line are deformed in quite this way. Take his half-brother, Juan Jose.
Juan Jose was born to the same Philip VI who was the result of three generations of inbreeding. Is the introduction of Mariana of Austria's genes truly what tipped Charles II over? This is particularly odd, considering we don't definitively see the chin anywhere in her side of the tree.
This brings me to my next point: The jaw itself. From what I can gather, the Habsburg Jaw is essentially an extreme case of mesiocculusion, more commonly known as an underbite, perhaps coupled with a long chin. (I know, technically prognathism is its own trait, but we're speaking of Charles II specifically here.) The interesting point is that I see shades of this as far back as Charles V of the HRE, who was not inbred. It appears again with great strength in Phillip II, and it can be assumed that some element of it appeared in between, either not portrayed by artists in these portraits, or made discreet thanks to facial hair.
In fact, here's a portrait of Charles V ("Kaiser Karl", so I assume that's who I'm looking at) that I take particular note of.
Clearly, this trait was present long, long before Charles II. I'd also like to note that Charles V's parents were in no way related, nor were his parents' parents.
There are many modern examples of traits similar to those found in the dynasty as well, none of which stem from inbreeding. If these people have any ties to the Habsburgs, they're quite distant ties.
In addition, we can view this another way: Many figures have been portrayed in a not-so-flattering light. I submit that to my knowledge, none of these had an excessive amount of inbreeding in their past.
Finally, I would raise my trump card. I'll note that to my knowledge, there's no way to accurately recreate Cleopatra VII's appearance, as her remains have never been found. Allegedly some scientists figure she looked like this...
Though this is based primarily on a statue and some coinage, and does things I'm not certain were accurate. For instance, I've read accounts that she had fair skin, while this rendering gives her features more indicative of modern Egypt than ancient Greco-Egypt. That said, there are some written accounts we can go on.
Julius Caesar, who actually lived in her time and met her, said of her that, "... she was a woman of surpassing beauty, and at the time, when she was in the prime of her youth, she was most stunning." He stated that she looked "wonderfully stunning" even while wearing mourning garments.
Plutarch, who lived about a century later, wrote, "For her beauty, as we are told, was in itself not altogether incomparable, nor such as to strike those who saw her; but converse with her had an irresistible charm, and her presence, combined with the persuasiveness of her discourse and the character which was somehow diffused about her behaviour towards others, had something stimulating about it. "
Plutarch's account is the least flattering I'm aware of with regards to her looks specifically, and it never states that she was particularly unattractive. His account merely supposes that she was said to be neither particularly attractive or unattractive. At the very least, she was attractive enough that her wit and charm made her seem beautiful to those she interacted with. In fact, we find him comparing her specifically to Antony's wife Octavia, who was at the time younger and arguably more beautiful.
The point I'm making here one that I'm sure many of you have already picked up on. By this time, the Ptolemaic line was so muddled and mangled with direct sibling incest that the entire lineage, paternal and maternal, had one pair of great-grandparents. At this point, eight generations of brother-to-sister marriages had culminated in Cleopatra VII. Compare this to four generations of marrying nieces or cousins in the Habsburg line. Why, then, was Cleopatra's face not a mangled mess?
Now to my closing argument...
I believe inbreeding does not automatically spawn deformity. I believe that the tragedy of Charles II has less to do with inbreeding and more to do with the fact that Charles V's jaw was inbred in the family line. In other words, I don't believe it's nonsensical in the least to allow positive physical traits to breed into characters in CK3, nor do I think inbreeding should necessitate DNA results that give us particularly gnarled characters. In fact, by my theory, exactly what the game is doing is how it should be done: Inbreed a negative trait, get uglier and uglier characters. In theory, inbreed a positive trait, get prettier characters.
Obviously there are genetic disadvantages to inbreeding that have been scientifically proven, but these are unseen. Lower immune systems, weaker fertility (though Cleopatra VII did have three siblings, interestingly enough), increased risk of certain diseases or disorders... However all these are modeled through the Inbred trait which, as I understand, makes a return in CK3.
In short, my friends, I'm quite happy with how CK3 seems to be handling this infamous phenomenon. I submit that if one wishes to make a Habsburg, one must actively try to do so.
I've been reading a bit about genetic traits and the capability for dynasties in CK3 to use inbreeding to stack genetic traits faster. I've seen some people in discussions here or there say that inbreeding should never be a positive, that it should yield deformity. That it shouldn't be possible to stack the Beautiful trait through inbreeding, for example. Now I haven't heard this so much here, but I'm posting it here because I feel of all the venues for CK3 discussion, this one is the most legitimate. Most everyone here actually has a heartfelt interest in history and historical accuracy, so I respect the folks here more than I do Reddit or Steam.
I'd like to lead off by saying that to my knowledge, the Habsburg Dynasty is the only go-to example of this. There are articles all over the internet about "the cost of royal inbreeding", and Charles II of Spain is the image that's always used to advertise the point. I'm sure most all of us have seen it by now.
However, a user posted this image in another thread recently:
This is the one that got me thinking. Immediately, what I see is that Charles II's features are by far the most exaggerated. I'd also like to note that not all of the inbred figures in his line are deformed in quite this way. Take his half-brother, Juan Jose.
Juan Jose was born to the same Philip VI who was the result of three generations of inbreeding. Is the introduction of Mariana of Austria's genes truly what tipped Charles II over? This is particularly odd, considering we don't definitively see the chin anywhere in her side of the tree.
This brings me to my next point: The jaw itself. From what I can gather, the Habsburg Jaw is essentially an extreme case of mesiocculusion, more commonly known as an underbite, perhaps coupled with a long chin. (I know, technically prognathism is its own trait, but we're speaking of Charles II specifically here.) The interesting point is that I see shades of this as far back as Charles V of the HRE, who was not inbred. It appears again with great strength in Phillip II, and it can be assumed that some element of it appeared in between, either not portrayed by artists in these portraits, or made discreet thanks to facial hair.
In fact, here's a portrait of Charles V ("Kaiser Karl", so I assume that's who I'm looking at) that I take particular note of.
Clearly, this trait was present long, long before Charles II. I'd also like to note that Charles V's parents were in no way related, nor were his parents' parents.
There are many modern examples of traits similar to those found in the dynasty as well, none of which stem from inbreeding. If these people have any ties to the Habsburgs, they're quite distant ties.
In addition, we can view this another way: Many figures have been portrayed in a not-so-flattering light. I submit that to my knowledge, none of these had an excessive amount of inbreeding in their past.
Finally, I would raise my trump card. I'll note that to my knowledge, there's no way to accurately recreate Cleopatra VII's appearance, as her remains have never been found. Allegedly some scientists figure she looked like this...
Though this is based primarily on a statue and some coinage, and does things I'm not certain were accurate. For instance, I've read accounts that she had fair skin, while this rendering gives her features more indicative of modern Egypt than ancient Greco-Egypt. That said, there are some written accounts we can go on.
Julius Caesar, who actually lived in her time and met her, said of her that, "... she was a woman of surpassing beauty, and at the time, when she was in the prime of her youth, she was most stunning." He stated that she looked "wonderfully stunning" even while wearing mourning garments.
Plutarch, who lived about a century later, wrote, "For her beauty, as we are told, was in itself not altogether incomparable, nor such as to strike those who saw her; but converse with her had an irresistible charm, and her presence, combined with the persuasiveness of her discourse and the character which was somehow diffused about her behaviour towards others, had something stimulating about it. "
Plutarch's account is the least flattering I'm aware of with regards to her looks specifically, and it never states that she was particularly unattractive. His account merely supposes that she was said to be neither particularly attractive or unattractive. At the very least, she was attractive enough that her wit and charm made her seem beautiful to those she interacted with. In fact, we find him comparing her specifically to Antony's wife Octavia, who was at the time younger and arguably more beautiful.
The point I'm making here one that I'm sure many of you have already picked up on. By this time, the Ptolemaic line was so muddled and mangled with direct sibling incest that the entire lineage, paternal and maternal, had one pair of great-grandparents. At this point, eight generations of brother-to-sister marriages had culminated in Cleopatra VII. Compare this to four generations of marrying nieces or cousins in the Habsburg line. Why, then, was Cleopatra's face not a mangled mess?
Now to my closing argument...
I believe inbreeding does not automatically spawn deformity. I believe that the tragedy of Charles II has less to do with inbreeding and more to do with the fact that Charles V's jaw was inbred in the family line. In other words, I don't believe it's nonsensical in the least to allow positive physical traits to breed into characters in CK3, nor do I think inbreeding should necessitate DNA results that give us particularly gnarled characters. In fact, by my theory, exactly what the game is doing is how it should be done: Inbreed a negative trait, get uglier and uglier characters. In theory, inbreed a positive trait, get prettier characters.
Obviously there are genetic disadvantages to inbreeding that have been scientifically proven, but these are unseen. Lower immune systems, weaker fertility (though Cleopatra VII did have three siblings, interestingly enough), increased risk of certain diseases or disorders... However all these are modeled through the Inbred trait which, as I understand, makes a return in CK3.
In short, my friends, I'm quite happy with how CK3 seems to be handling this infamous phenomenon. I submit that if one wishes to make a Habsburg, one must actively try to do so.
Last edited:
- 37
- 12
- 9
- 3
- 3
- 2