Kingdom setup improvement thread

[unmerged(21937)]

On popular request in Duchy thread. Do note however that I'm pretty content with the current kingdom setup in betas, but if you feel that you can convince me of important changes that need doing, please go ahead. I promise to consider and give explanation why or why not to every well explained proposal.

Keep in mind these things however:
1) All creatable kingdoms must be at least six provinces in size, preferably significantly more, ideal size is 20-30 provinces.
2a) If the kingdom is to be in territory held by christians during significant part of CK era, it must be based on a historical christian-recognized realm comparable to kingdom in power
2b) Futhermore, if it is a title not created during CK era, it must not be creatable with starting lands by any ruler in any scenario
3) Being historically called king doesn't automatically mean having a realm comparable to kingdom in power
4) If you violate forum rules with your arguing for your proposal, your proposal will not be implemented

List of concluded proposals and their result:
- Renaming Naples to Sicily, yes, since it's more historically appropriate name for it
- Turning Wales into Britons with Brittany and Cornwall, no, since it would be even less historical than Wales
- Gotland from Denmark to Sweden, yes, since it reflects history better
- Holstein from Germany to Denmark, yes, since CK province Holstein is real world Slesvig
- Venezia from Italy to NONE, yes, so that we can have Venice as an independent duchy instead of kingdom

 

[Calgacus]

I don't really object much to the Kingdoms in existence,and as it stands doesn't need much improvement in terms of what's there; possibly just in areas of declarability and naming.

The Britons

I doubt this idea will have much support, but here goes anyway. This is suggested as an alternative for Wales. Wales never existed as a kingdom, and was never really conceived as one. However, the Welsh and Bretons conceived of a Kingdom of the Britons. The Kingdom would include the 6 Wales provinces, Hereford, the 6 Brittany provinces, and 3 Cornwall provinces.

This will stop the English king declaring himself King of Wales. However, should a British Prince subdue enough of Wales, Cornwall and Brittany, he can make himself King of the Britons.

I don't mind this being rejected though, because the absence of Wales from any of the scenarios makes it very easy to mod.

-----

Naples to Sicily

Naples doesn't exist for long enough in the CK period to be a kingdom. Sicily does though. I propose Naples is renamed Sicily. This might entail a rethinking of the Duchy of Sicily too ... a good thing.

Kingdom of Armenia

Actually a reality, unlike Aleppo. It existed for over a millenium before the CK period. I'm not sure I need to make a case for it, given the popularity of the proposal.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

The Britons

I doubt this idea will have much support, but here goes anyway. This is suggested as an alternative for Wales. Wales never existed as a kingdom, and was never really conceived as one. However, the Welsh and Bretons conceived of a Kingdom of the Britons. The Kingdom would include the 6 Wales provinces, Hereford, the 6 Brittany provinces, and 3 Cornwall provinces.

This will stop the English king declaring himself King of Wales. However, should a British Prince subdue enough of Wales, Cornwall and Brittany, he can make himself King of the Britons.

I don't mind this being rejected though, because the absence of Wales from any of the scenarios makes it very easy to mod.

Couldn't Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, who died very shortly before CK era begins (1063) be seen as "king of Wales"? He didn't rule the whole of it for very long however.

Did the rulers of Brythonic lands ever acknowledge a single ruler as their overlord? Kings of England don't count.

Naples to Sicily

Naples doesn't exist for long enough in the CK period to be a kingdom. Sicily does though. I propose Naples is renamed Sicily. This might entail a rethinking of the Duchy of Sicily too ... a good thing.

I agree that this is a valid historicality improvement. What do you mean by rethinking the duchy of Sicily however?

Kingdom of Armenia

Actually a reality, unlike Aleppo. It existed for over a millenium before the CK period. I'm not sure I need to make a case for it, given the popularity of the proposal.

But could it be justified to large enough size?

 

[unmerged(2456)]

i still say adding an andalusia kingdom should be done. If you feel iberia has too many kingdoms, Leon can be removed as a recreatable kingdom since the only time it became seperate was from Castile (which can still happen as titles don't go away )

 

[unmerged(21937)]

i still say adding an andalusia kingdom should be done. If you feel iberia has too many kingdoms, Leon can be removed as a recreatable kingdom since the only time it became seperate was from Castile (which can still happen as titles don't go away )

Leon existed as a kingdom for far longer than Castile before CK era however. We find first kings of Leon in 924, while first king of Castile was only at 1035.

Also Andalucia doesn't fill rule 2 of first post.

 

[Calgacus]

Couldn't Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, who died very shortly before CK era begins (1063) be seen as "king of Wales"? He didn't rule the whole of it for very long however.

Yes, he did. I don't know what title he used, but it would not have been Wales. The Welsh (in Latin) use the word "Brittania" to mean what we call Wales until the 12th century. Cambria is experimented with, but by the 13th century they're using "Wallia."

Did the rulers of Brythonic lands ever acknowledge a single ruler as their overlord? Kings of England don't count.

No, not in the CK period at least. Arthurian myth, though, which derives from these lands, rests upon the ideology of pan-British unity. In the year 1282, in the aftermath of the failure of Prince Llewelyn’s rebellion, Edward I received “Arthur’s crown” from the Welsh. Llewelyn’s bodiless head was stuck on a pike in London and crowned king of the Britons, “in fulfilment of the prophecy of Merlin.”

I agree that this is a valid historicality improvement. What do you mean by rethinking the duchy of Sicily however?

Well, it's odd to have both a King and a Duke of Sicily, don't you think?

But could it be justified to large enough size?

Of course, larger than Georgia. The area of declarability could be all the lands inhabited by Armenians with the exception of core Byzantine lands. So, the Princedom of Armenia and Armenia Minor, plus the connecting lands of northern Aleppo. The Kingdom of Aleppo could be scrap, with those territories not given to Armenia, given to Syria.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Leon existed as a kingdom for far longer than Castile before CK era however. We find first kings of Leon in 924, while first king of Castile was only at 1035.

Well then if that's then Cordoba wins that and yet its not in. And Cordoba still exists as a republic and as the Tafia states as their direct succssors. The collapse of Cordoba was only shortly before the game began, shorter than the time when the last King of Ireland existed, but we can still have a king for them.

Also Andalucia doesn't fill rule 2 of first post.

Then make it Granada. I want to see you argue that Granda did not exist for an extended exists for a length of time in CK.

 

[Calgacus]

Well then if that's then Cordoba wins that and yet its not in. And Cordoba still exists as a republic and as the Tafia states as their direct succssors. The collapse of Cordoba was only shortly before the game began, shorter than the time when the last King of Ireland existed, but we can still have a king for them.

The last king of Ireland was Edward Bruce. While the Kings of England took the title too.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Yes, he did. I don't know what title he used, but it would not have been Wales. The Welsh (in Latin) use the word "Brittania" to mean what we call Wales until the 12th century. Cambria is experimented with, but by the 13th century they're using "Wallia."

I think Wales is a better name for a kingdom in Wales than Brittania, Cambria or Wallia, just like Byzantium is Byzantium and not Rhomaion. But Wales could be NONE too. It's rather problematic area, since it's very small area, but it's not right in England, Scotland or Ireland either.

Well, it's odd to have both a King and a Duke of Sicily, don't you think?

We have both king and duke of Croatia, Bohemia and Castile too. Besides, Roger de Hauteville (count of Reggio in 1066 scen) was later invested as "count of Sicily" and his son Roger, who became first king of Sicily, was first count of Sicily as well. So there is justification for duchy of Sicily imo. Of course, if you do have better idea, you may suggest it. Trinacria?

Of course, larger than Georgia. The area of declarability could be all the lands inhabited by Armenians with the exception of core Byzantine lands. So, the Princedom of Armenia and Armenia Minor, plus the connecting lands of northern Aleppo. The Kingdom of Aleppo could be scrap, with those territories not given to Armenia, given to Syria.

It would reduce Georgia to only seven provinces though, shouldn't something be added to that as well? Duchy of Abkhazia's territory for example?

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Then make it Granada. I want to see you argue that Granda did not exist for an extended exists for a length of time in CK.

You miss out the critical part of rule 2: on a historical christian realm

 

[Calgacus]

I think Wales is a better name for a kingdom in Wales than Brittania, Cambria or Wallia, just like Byzantium is Byzantium and not Rhomaion. But Wales could be NONE too. It's rather problematic area, since it's very small area, but it's not right in England, Scotland or Ireland either.

Well, that's why I suggested the "Kingdom of Britons." Wales should definitely not be in England. It's already bad enough the Welsh are so underpowered, never mind voulntarily becoming vassals of England.

If Wales were a Kingdom , it should definitely be Wales. I was just suggesting it be replaced by "Britons" for all the Brythonic lands.

We have both king and duke of Croatia, Bohemia and Castile too. Besides, Roger de Hauteville (count of Reggio in 1066 scen) was later invested as "count of Sicily" and his son Roger, who became first king of Sicily, was first count of Sicily as well. So there is justification for duchy of Sicily imo. Of course, if you do have better idea, you may suggest it. Trinacria?

I suppose.

I can't think of another way to do it. I do think Sicily is too big, but like you said, we've already got that with Bohemia. There's no historical way of dividing it into two Dukedoms without resorting to archbishoprics.

It would reduce Georgia to only seven provinces though, shouldn't something be added to that as well? Duchy of Abkhazia's territory for example?

Haha ... and there was me thinking Albania, Derbent and Semender shouldn't be in Georgia. Well, I don't care much for the Kingom of Cumans, so that'd be fine with me at least, (although I know others have opoinions about the kingdom of Abkhazia).

 

[unmerged(2456)]

You miss out the critical part of rule 2: on a historical christian realm

Then remove the area that would be Andalucia from any realm. Definatly at the minimum Granda. I mean if Britiany isn't part of France although eventually it would become so after CK, why should Granda be part of Castile when it was never part of it at any time during this period?

Bur as i said almost the entire area should be cut from them and put into none since you don't want to make an Andalucia realm because they have no justifcation for that area being a part of their "historic" kingdom.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Well, that's why I suggested the "Kingdom of Britons." Wales should definitely not be in England. It's already bad enough the Welsh are so underpowered, never mind voulntarily becoming vassals of England.

If Wales were a Kingdom , it should definitely be Wales. I was just suggesting it be replaced by "Britons" for all the Brythonic lands.

The problem with that is just that "kingdom of Wales" is rather better justified for CK era than "kingdom of Britons", even if it's by Gruffydd's achievement alone. Also Dafydd ap Llewelyn was recognized as "prince of Wales" by king Henry the Third. So I'd say either "king of Wales" with the six provs or NONE territory. NONE could be more accurate, since I doubt Gruffydd or Dafydd were truly considered kings among the other kings.

Haha ... and there was me thinking Albania, Derbent and Semender shouldn't be in Georgia. Well, I don't care much for the Kingom of Cumans, so that'd be fine with me at least, (although I know others have opoinions about the kingdom of Abkhazia).

Four province Georgia would be too small by far.

To consider, what all could be part of Georgia? The three provinces of Abkhazia surely, as my opinion of kingdom of Abkhazia is that it's finely represented by duchy of Abkhazia. But reducing Derbent, Albania and Semender from Georgia would then leave Georgia with just seven provinces again. So what else? Alania? Trapezous?

And where would Albania, Semender and Derbent go to?

 

[Calgacus]

The problem with that is just that "kingdom of Wales" is rather better justified for CK era than "kingdom of Britons", even if it's by Gruffydd's achievement alone. Also Dafydd ap Llewelyn was recognized as "prince of Wales" by king Henry the Third. So I'd say either "king of Wales" with the six provs or NONE territory. NONE could be more accurate, since I doubt Gruffydd or Dafydd were truly considered kings among the other kings.

Like I said, I didn't think the Britons idea would get support. To make 'em none would be rather a shame, since it would remove the possibility of ever having a kingdom of Wales for anyone wanting to play a Welsh principality.

T
Four province Georgia would be too small by far.

To consider, what all could be part of Georgia? The three provinces of Abkhazia surely, as my opinion of kingdom of Abkhazia is that it's finely represented by duchy of Abkhazia. But reducing Derbent, Albania and Semender from Georgia would then leave Georgia with just seven provinces again. So what else? Alania? Trapezous?

And where would Albania, Semender and Derbent go to?

Persia or NONE?

Actually, it's no big deal really. The areas that weren't Christian in the CK period can really go whereever with out making much of a historical difference. So, Georgia might as well be the 9 or 10 province Kingdom you desire.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Anyway, you have plans of adding Lotharingia?

This still doesn't mean i don't think southern iberia shouldn't be addressed....

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Like I said, I didn't think the Britons idea would get support. To make 'em none would be rather a shame, since it would remove the possibility of ever having a kingdom of Wales for anyone wanting to play a Welsh principality.

So Wales it shall remain.

Actually, it's no big deal really. The areas that weren't Christian in the CK period can really go whereever with out making much of a historical difference. So, Georgia might as well be the 9 or 10 province Kingdom you desire.

Great.

Anyway, you have plans of adding Lotharingia?

This still doesn't mean i don't think southern iberia shouldn't be addressed....

I changed the first post rules, so that they allow Lithuania to be valid realm and Granada to be considered a valid realm, since I think it's better that way. However, I also added rule 2b, since I initially forgot it.

 

[unmerged(44651)]

Na dont change the current Wales Area to none, would be a pity!
I also like the Briton idea...

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I changed the first post rules, so that they allow Lithuania to be valid realm and Granada to be considered a valid realm, since I think it's better that way. However, I also added rule 2b, since I initially forgot it.

I see so that also would appear to make Lotharingia a no-go without some serious unhistoric changes (or chanegs by johan to minimum # of provinces required)

But doesn't Germany have several titles already it can create in 1066?

Also this will probably get me kicked, but i don't think Byzantium should be recreatable by the means of conquering enough provinces. Only those who have claims to its title should be able to have a chance to bring it back from the dead should fall similar to Navarra.

I mean when the Ottomans destroyed Byzantium no one really tried to recreate it. In fact rather Russia and the Ottomans tried to claim succession of sorts to the Byzantium throne, but made sure not to say they were Byzantium.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

I see so that also would appear to make Lotharingia a no-go without some serious unhistoric changes (or chanegs by johan to minimum # of provinces required)

Indeed, I remembered that rule when you mentioned Lotharingia, since it was my principal opposition to Lotharingia when it was discussed in the Public Beta kingdom thread. And still is.

But doesn't Germany have several titles already it can create in 1066?

Bohemia, which did exist in CK timeframe, but nothing else. Remember that we are talking about king titles here.

Also this will probably get me kicked, but i don't think Byzantium should be recreatable by the means of conquering enough provinces. Only those who have claims to its title should be able to have a chance to bring it back from the dead should fall similar to Navarra.

I mean when the Ottomans destroyed Byzantium no one really tried to recreate it. In fact rather Russia and the Ottomans tried to claim succession of sorts to the Byzantium throne, but made sure not to say they were Byzantium.

It is valid reasoning, but it would also mean that no independent count or duke would pledge allegiance to Byzantium and that we'd have some 60 provinces of NONE territory.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

It is valid reasoning, but it would also mean that no independent count or duke would pledge allegiance to Byzantium and that we'd have some 60 provinces of NONE territory.

Well the pledging system is wacked right now anyway.

And those provinces need not be none. certainly some other kingdoms could be placed there instead.