As many are probably aware, I'm fascinated by 11th and 12th century Irish history, it's one of the reasons why I began to play CK2 in the first place. Although given that Ireland was developing a hybrid feudal system at the time, CK2 represents it quite well, i think there are other aspects that could be added that would make playing as an Irish kingdom more interesting and more challenging.
1) The High-Kingship itself.
a) Forming the High-Kingship. Most High-Kings in the 11th and 12th centuries were known as Rí Érenn co fressabra "Kings of Ireland with Opposition". This reflects the fact that the did not need to hold the majority of Irish territory in order to claim themselves as High-King. More often or not, they announced their claim, and fought to have that claim recognised. This could be represented in the game by all Irish dukes (who own or control all their de jure territory) having access to a decision in the intrigue menu, which immediately starts a war with all other Irish dukes, who are not in alliance with that kingdom or have a very low opinion of that kingdom. Furthermore, while holding the High-Kingship, other dukes may issue a challenge for the high-kingship and dukes under your control who favour them above you could defect to fight for their claim against you.
b) The High-Kingship as a title never survived its holders. On death, the heir would have to start against, campaigning to secure their duchy and then claiming the High-Kingship again. The High-Kingship wasn't monopolised during this period, but it could have been had son succeeded father over two generations, which was the the process in which de factio became de jure in Brehon law. Something like this, three generations of one dynasty becoming High King could allow the High-Kingship to become hereditary. Perhaps the claim system could be exploited for this.
2) The nature of authority.
The nature of authority was personal. Large vassals frequently broke free on the death of their liege as did their heirs when the vassal himself died, depending on the relationship between the vassal/liege and the successor. In the game, this would mean that the duke and Earl of Connacht could lose control of the Earldom of Bréifne if either he or the Earl died and the successors did not enjoy the same relationship. (To partially overcome this, the Kings could nominate the successor of the rulers of Bréifne, which could possible be used in the game, if you gave lieges a vote in their vassals elections.) Defection would also be possible if the relationship between the two deteroriated naturally.
There were many ways in which relationship between liege and vassal could be cemented.
a Marriage. An Irish king and his heir, could marry polygamously. Ruaidhrí Ua Conchobhair in the 12th century had 6 wives. This seems to have improved relations between neighbours as well as subjects. A clever lord could marry his heir to a powerful neighbouring or currently subject dynasty to give his son a much needed alliance (and relations when he was trying to reconstruct his shattered kingdom). There was a primary wife (cétmuinter), and all subsequent wives were called adaltrach (from the latin for adulteress). However, all children of these wives had a claim on the kingdom, and mother-kin were frequently invoked to establish pretenders on their father's throne.
b Fosterage. Fosterage (which is virtually the same as education) was used to cement relationships with rival and subject dynasties. It served the education of the ward in question, boosted the relationship between the ward and his foster-family, and guaranteed him and his father an alliance. Perhaps a significant relations boost would be enough to reflect this in game.
c Hostages. Frequently used by Irish kings to cement their authority over their jurisdiction, by holding their subject's or their rival's heirs, with the threat of blinding or death should the hostage's parent betray him. Obviously, this isn't implimented in game, but would be an interesting addition to any Pagan DLC. The hostage could be represented as a prisoner under house-arrest (with no health-penalties) in the hostage-takers court. It would be a massive bargaining chip for the hostage-taker, which meant that the parent of the hostage accedes to every demand. Hostages then could be used to extort tribute (see below), secure alliance, and thus respond to any call of arms. Holding a hostage thus would give the hostage taker an enormous amount of sway over the target, regardless of their rank. To work against that, acceding to these demands could force the target to be overthrown and replaced by another ruler, thus rendering the hostage pointless. Equally, a foreign power could also install another claimant again rendering the hostage pointless. Similarly, there could be plots to allow the hostage to escape, or even to kill the hostage which would also undermine the hostage-taker's control. There could also be a chance to pass the hostage onto the hostage taker's heir, should the hostage-taker die. Hostages could be taken by request or by a cb.
d. Raiding. An essential part of Irish warfare and European warfare in general. Raids were not merely a means of increasing your coffers, but if they effected the economy of the target, you could return the prey in return for a demand (marriage alliance, vassalisation, hostages?). Perhaps a spy could be sent to a province with a yearly chance to fire a clandestine raiding event, which if fails, will break out into open war.
3) Inheritance and claims - All adult great-grandsons of a previous king should be electable, and should be given a claim. Claims did not pass to females or through females in Brehon Law. This of course would mean no marrying into provinces. Marriage then, can only secure alliances, and not kingdoms, at least not in de jure Ireland. Those supporting alternative candidates could be placed in a faction and given the option of fighting for their candidates claim on succession, a typical occurrence in Ireland. This would encourage a drive towards primogentiture.
With great difficulty, did kings take over provinces they had no traditional claim too. One such was Toirdhelbhach Ua Conchobhair who placed his son as King of Meath, which lead to a rebellion and his son being murdered. Placing a dynast over a kingdom/province he has no claim too should cause massive penalties and a greater chance of rebellion.
4) Extortion. You should be able to extort money from neighbouring weak kingdoms in return for a truce. I think that feature would be a nice feature in any pagan/tribal dlc.
I'm not expecting this to be implimented, but I think there are a few nice ideas in there for developers and modders to change the nature of playing in tribal/dynastic/quasi-feudal countries like Ireland, as opposed to feudal countries like England, France and the HRE.
1) The High-Kingship itself.
a) Forming the High-Kingship. Most High-Kings in the 11th and 12th centuries were known as Rí Érenn co fressabra "Kings of Ireland with Opposition". This reflects the fact that the did not need to hold the majority of Irish territory in order to claim themselves as High-King. More often or not, they announced their claim, and fought to have that claim recognised. This could be represented in the game by all Irish dukes (who own or control all their de jure territory) having access to a decision in the intrigue menu, which immediately starts a war with all other Irish dukes, who are not in alliance with that kingdom or have a very low opinion of that kingdom. Furthermore, while holding the High-Kingship, other dukes may issue a challenge for the high-kingship and dukes under your control who favour them above you could defect to fight for their claim against you.
b) The High-Kingship as a title never survived its holders. On death, the heir would have to start against, campaigning to secure their duchy and then claiming the High-Kingship again. The High-Kingship wasn't monopolised during this period, but it could have been had son succeeded father over two generations, which was the the process in which de factio became de jure in Brehon law. Something like this, three generations of one dynasty becoming High King could allow the High-Kingship to become hereditary. Perhaps the claim system could be exploited for this.
2) The nature of authority.
The nature of authority was personal. Large vassals frequently broke free on the death of their liege as did their heirs when the vassal himself died, depending on the relationship between the vassal/liege and the successor. In the game, this would mean that the duke and Earl of Connacht could lose control of the Earldom of Bréifne if either he or the Earl died and the successors did not enjoy the same relationship. (To partially overcome this, the Kings could nominate the successor of the rulers of Bréifne, which could possible be used in the game, if you gave lieges a vote in their vassals elections.) Defection would also be possible if the relationship between the two deteroriated naturally.
There were many ways in which relationship between liege and vassal could be cemented.
a Marriage. An Irish king and his heir, could marry polygamously. Ruaidhrí Ua Conchobhair in the 12th century had 6 wives. This seems to have improved relations between neighbours as well as subjects. A clever lord could marry his heir to a powerful neighbouring or currently subject dynasty to give his son a much needed alliance (and relations when he was trying to reconstruct his shattered kingdom). There was a primary wife (cétmuinter), and all subsequent wives were called adaltrach (from the latin for adulteress). However, all children of these wives had a claim on the kingdom, and mother-kin were frequently invoked to establish pretenders on their father's throne.
b Fosterage. Fosterage (which is virtually the same as education) was used to cement relationships with rival and subject dynasties. It served the education of the ward in question, boosted the relationship between the ward and his foster-family, and guaranteed him and his father an alliance. Perhaps a significant relations boost would be enough to reflect this in game.
c Hostages. Frequently used by Irish kings to cement their authority over their jurisdiction, by holding their subject's or their rival's heirs, with the threat of blinding or death should the hostage's parent betray him. Obviously, this isn't implimented in game, but would be an interesting addition to any Pagan DLC. The hostage could be represented as a prisoner under house-arrest (with no health-penalties) in the hostage-takers court. It would be a massive bargaining chip for the hostage-taker, which meant that the parent of the hostage accedes to every demand. Hostages then could be used to extort tribute (see below), secure alliance, and thus respond to any call of arms. Holding a hostage thus would give the hostage taker an enormous amount of sway over the target, regardless of their rank. To work against that, acceding to these demands could force the target to be overthrown and replaced by another ruler, thus rendering the hostage pointless. Equally, a foreign power could also install another claimant again rendering the hostage pointless. Similarly, there could be plots to allow the hostage to escape, or even to kill the hostage which would also undermine the hostage-taker's control. There could also be a chance to pass the hostage onto the hostage taker's heir, should the hostage-taker die. Hostages could be taken by request or by a cb.
d. Raiding. An essential part of Irish warfare and European warfare in general. Raids were not merely a means of increasing your coffers, but if they effected the economy of the target, you could return the prey in return for a demand (marriage alliance, vassalisation, hostages?). Perhaps a spy could be sent to a province with a yearly chance to fire a clandestine raiding event, which if fails, will break out into open war.
3) Inheritance and claims - All adult great-grandsons of a previous king should be electable, and should be given a claim. Claims did not pass to females or through females in Brehon Law. This of course would mean no marrying into provinces. Marriage then, can only secure alliances, and not kingdoms, at least not in de jure Ireland. Those supporting alternative candidates could be placed in a faction and given the option of fighting for their candidates claim on succession, a typical occurrence in Ireland. This would encourage a drive towards primogentiture.
With great difficulty, did kings take over provinces they had no traditional claim too. One such was Toirdhelbhach Ua Conchobhair who placed his son as King of Meath, which lead to a rebellion and his son being murdered. Placing a dynast over a kingdom/province he has no claim too should cause massive penalties and a greater chance of rebellion.
4) Extortion. You should be able to extort money from neighbouring weak kingdoms in return for a truce. I think that feature would be a nice feature in any pagan/tribal dlc.
I'm not expecting this to be implimented, but I think there are a few nice ideas in there for developers and modders to change the nature of playing in tribal/dynastic/quasi-feudal countries like Ireland, as opposed to feudal countries like England, France and the HRE.
