Mad, insane, sick and incompetent monarchs?

[unmerged(53986)]

hmm, one good way to get incompetent rulers would be to not take rulers out to war it would seem
wonder if thats simulated as such?


Afterall all the really useless ones have all been thronepotatoes, right?

 

[Skarion]

hmm, one good way to get incompetent rulers would be to not take rulers out to war it would seem
wonder if thats simulated as such?


Afterall all the really useless ones have all been thronepotatoes, right?

I am not sure as Sweden has never had any truly incompetent rulers.

We had a couple of insane ones, but they had some good ideas about diplomacy, economics and even were pretty good in battle, so I wouldn't consider them useless.

 

[unmerged(59737)]

I’m willing to bet that the military skill of a monarch is somehow tied into the military tradition of his/her country, and is not just random. If a country only has 15% military tradition and hasn’t been in a war for 75 years, it can expect a string of VERY poor military monarchs.

 

[unmerged(58317)]

I am not sure as Sweden has never had any truly incompetent rulers.

We had a couple of insane ones, but they had some good ideas about diplomacy, economics and even were pretty good in battle, so I wouldn't consider them useless.

What about "Fredrik I"

 

[Skarion]

What about "Fredrik I"

Not bad per se, he was just moderate and lacked most real power. He is pretty much comparable with most Danish monarchs.

 

[Ayeshteni]

The very nature of the monarchial system will mean that your country WILL be run at some point by a jibbering loon.

i hope it is modeled.

Ayeshteni

 

[Registered]

Having your monarch, Gods' Annointed Ruler of your country, die on a battlefield is rarely a positive experience for a country - see e.g. king Lajos of Hungary .

Bah, just make sure you have the right form of government first and let the Estates General take over in the meantime.


DISCLAIMER: that was just conjecture.

 

[Drakken]

Indeed, it's not hard to find historical situations where incompetent and stupid monarchs ruled over periods of extreme and stable prosperity, thanks to their trusted advisors.

In fact, it's incredibly hard to find any period in which monarchs were either insane or incompetent that was not rife of instability, intrigue, and open strife. Even George III's insanity almost caused the fall of William Pitt the Younger's government.

Minorities are another issue altogether, since advisors and member of the Council of Regency were usually appointed by the late monarch's will (like Louis XIII of France) and things could be arranged when the monarch was remotely capable when legally adult (like Louis XIV or Karl XI of Sweden).

However, insanity and/or incompetence was most of the time irreversible, except by death or abdication of the monarch. Grandees, advisors and blood princes were left to their own devices and no one (save a VERY loyal Prime minister or Lord Protector) could keep them on the line. If not, usually it was open season for all the noblemen's personal inclinations and ambitions.

D.

 

[Drakken]

I am not sure as Sweden has never had any truly incompetent rulers.

Erik XIV and Gustav IV Adolf.

When you read Erik XIV's letter exchanges with Ivan the Terrible, you cannot help but wonder why he wasn't poisoned earlier.

D.

 

[KaiserChicken]

In fact, it's incredibly hard to find any period in which monarchs were either insane or incompetent that was not rife of instability, intrigue, and open strife. Even George III's insanity almost caused the fall of William Pitt the Younger's government.

In spite of Portugal's blessing of chronical incompetence, its worst monarchs would usually be compensated by excellent ministers. Right now, I recall King Afonso VI (who could not move the left part of his body and suffered from a peculiar type of schyzophrenia) who was "saved" by his Prime-Minister, the Count of Castelo-Melhor. We also have the example I gave of the Marquis of Pombal, Minister to King Joseph I (weak-minded and easily manipulated).

 

[Drakken]

In spite of Portugal's blessing of chronical incompetence, its worst monarchs would usually be compensated by excellent ministers. Right now, I recall King Afonso VI (who could not move the left part of his body and suffered from a peculiar type of schyzophrenia) who was "saved" by his Prime-Minister, the Count of Castelo-Melhor. We also have the example I gave of the Marquis of Pombal, Minister to King Joseph I (weak-minded and easily manipulated).

It could be argued in this case that it was the Minister who was manipulating the monarch without any meaningful opposition. Their personal competence doesn't hide the fact that there were simply not the level of competitition among the favorites in Portugal to become the Minister than, say, in Spain, in France, or Austria.

But of course, I do now know Portuguese history that deeply, so enlighten me if I am wrong.

D.

 

[joriandrake]

Either that, or determinist events which fire when certain circumstances are met.

Also, don't forget that we will still have historical advisors like Leonardo da Vinci, Cardinal Richelieu et al, who should (and probably will) boost stats in certain fields.

....well...if you think about it...its quite wierd to have historical advisors in a nonhistorical world

 

[Skarion]

Erik XIV and Gustav IV Adolf.

When you read Erik XIV's letter exchanges with Ivan the Terrible, you cannot help but wonder why he wasn't poisoned earlier.

On Erik XIV: I don't think I've read it (Or maybe some written down by Alf Henriksson, but I don't recall them), but I've read his diaries, his plans for Sweden and his military campagins against Denmark which in my view would state he was just crazy and very different for his time. As a monarch I else think he could do a pretty good job.

And about Gustav IV Adolf you have to admit he wasn't bad at all, in intrigue and in culture he was superior to most monarchs, he just was a failure in the military.

They were just a kilometre away from making France a Swedish puppet. I wonder how the world would have become if that happend...

 

[unmerged(37697)]

....well...if you think about it...its quite wierd to have historical advisors in a nonhistorical world

It is an historical world, for the most part.

 

[unmerged(53986)]

They were just a kilometre away from making France a Swedish puppet. I wonder how the world would have become if that happend...

Placed some french general to play swedish monarch?

 

[unmerged(7537)]

The very nature of the monarchial system will mean that your country WILL be run at some point by a jibbering loon.

i hope it is modeled.

Ayeshteni

It also provides a great gameplay opportunity. Can you feel the thrill of desperately searching for competent advisors to alleviate the problems caused by a batshit insane monarch already?

 

[unmerged(7537)]

....well...if you think about it...its quite wierd to have historical advisors in a nonhistorical world

Why not? EU2 had historical monarchs in a nonhistorical world as well.

Besides, it happens a lot in alternate history stories - just read the AAR section to get an idea about that. So why not make it a game feature?

 

[Skarion]

Placed some french general to play swedish monarch?

His spy in the French court almost escaped with the king and queen of France.

If successfull they had been promised support by the Prussians and Austrians to slaughter the reveloution and put the French king on the throne, which of course had given a solemn promise to support their Swedish friends in the north with whatever we needed.

 

[Sekenr]

Well....

And of course the new monarch could be even worse.

I don't think this is enough of a deterrent. If you kill a crappy monarch, in the worsk case you'll get another bad one, so its a no-lose situation.

 

[knul]

I don't think this is enough of a deterrent. If you kill a crappy monarch, in the worsk case you'll get another bad one, so its a no-lose situation.

That's true, but perhaps having a lunatic king increases the chance of having an extreme outcome of the monarch's death (as in the dev diary). So killing of your madman could result in a succession war. In that case, killing of a bad monarch would be detrimental. Maybe the chance of having a succession war/other bad outcome decreases with the lenght of you monarch's rule. This would prevent (or at least hinder) the player from killing his monarchs every year until the dice roll right.

Whatever it is, I'm sure the developers have found a way that penalizes the player from killing their monarchs too often.