No primogeniture before 1200?

[Karlington]

I just started watching the tutorial video on technology, and I noticed that at 0:58 we see the Late Medieval Era with Primogeniture as an invention, and the earliest start date of 1200 AD.

From what I can gather that means primogeniture won't be available until 1200. This is going to change the game a lot for me, because the early game was often a race for primogeniture for me. Especially with the earlier start date we're talking over three centuries without primogeniture. :O

 

[Atalvyr]

It is indeed a big change, though there are also a lot more cultural-specific succession laws than in CK2.

We know that Celtic cultures have tanistry and the Norse have "Scandinavian Elective", where a rulers kids are electable with the military might of each son is a large factor. The Anglo-Saxons have an elective variant as well.

So I expect that plenty of cultures will have alternatives to gavelkind before they eventually get primogeniture. If your culture has a particularly good one, you might not want to ever go to high crown authority, as feudal contracts mean you can squeeze more out of happy autonomous vassals than quarrelsome "restrained" ones.

 

[Nitan17]

1200!? Uh, I understand and agree with making us have Gavelkind for longer, but 1200 seems waaay overboard, I honestly can't remember the last time I reached that year. I expected something closer to 1100, even 1150 would be fine.

 

[famaouz]

Speaking of which, when did primogeniture become common in medieval times?

 

[Keizer Harm]

Speaking of which, when did primogeniture become common in medieval times?

...it depends. Some realms kept splitting until much past the enddate, others never had partible succession to begin with. The year 1200 sorta matches when the Spanish kingdoms were definitively unified (1230).

 

[Battlex]

It is indeed a big change, though there are also a lot more cultural-specific succession laws than in CK2.

We know that Celtic cultures have tanistry and the Norse have "Scandinavian Elective", where a rulers kids are electable with the military might of each son is a large factor. The Anglo-Saxons have an elective variant as well.

So I expect that plenty of cultures will have alternatives to gavelkind before they eventually get primogeniture. If your culture has a particularly good one, you might not want to ever go to high crown authority, as feudal contracts mean you can squeeze more out of happy autonomous vassals than quarrelsome "restrained" ones.

Anglo saxons have either elective monarchy or a unique wittan, this was shown in one of the early tutorials showing Alfred the Great's kids with One Proud Bavarian iirc. Czechs have seniority succession and that was shown as a unique culture tech so presumably allowing them to get it earlier than others.

Any source on Scandinavian election? Hopefully its not as annoying as Byz imperial elective was

 

[Knotz]

Heeeeelllllooo liberal child murder and the disinheritance mechanic.

 

[Aemr]

There is stronger forms of partition available where your primary heir will inherit half of your titles and the realm will not splinter.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Speaking of which, when did primogeniture become common in medieval times?

i think the british act of succession was 1702

 

[Raykyn]

Speaking of which, when did primogeniture become common in medieval times?

Strongly depends. There was rarely primogeniture like we see it in CK2 (only one child inherits something). The usual form would be what in CK3 is called High partition iirc. Meaning one child inherits the highest title, while the others are given some lower titles. This was the case for France the case for example. Something CK3 also can't replicate is the act of sharing a title, done for example by the Habsburg dynasty, where the title of Duke of Austria was sometimes shared between all brothers.

I really like that they made primogeniture harder to get for my part. But as playstyles vary, I can understand why some people might not like it. Good thing modding exists

 

[ValgardWillRuleEurope]

I hope they make an exception for Norway for historical reasons.

 

[Ezumiyr]

Some cultures will likely have Primogeniture (or equivalents) available earlier through cultural innovations.

 

[Atalvyr]

Any source on Scandinavian election? Hopefully its not as annoying as Byz imperial elective was

I think OneProudBavarian mentioned it in the same video you are referencing, though he did not actively show it. It was like a 5 second description, so easy to miss.

 

[wolfgag]

Partible inheritance would be tolerable if I could at least decide which titles each son gets AND sons who are married to landed women are excluded, they already got some land after all.

Getting primo will definitely be a primary goal for me, for unmodded cultures anyway. Naturally my custom cultures will conveniently have primo as a cultural tradition. (^:[3+

 

[Chlodio]

Speaking of which, when did primogeniture become common in medieval times?

Basically no hereditary monarchy had a regulated succession before the Early Modern Period. Succession was determined by testament and tradition, most of the traditions were primogeniture, the proximity of blood and partible inheritance, while the Slavs were obsessed with seniority.
The transition of France is fairly interesting when Hugh Capet was elected, he crowned his oldest son as his co-ruler, so he would automatically succeed him upon his death, this tradition continued until Philip Augustus.

 

[Darrigan]

Speaking of which, when did primogeniture become common in medieval times?

...it depends. Some realms kept splitting until much past the enddate, others never had partible succession to begin with. The year 1200 sorta matches when the Spanish kingdoms were definitively unified (1230).

I believe that primogeniture also became the norm in France from the rule of Philip II (r. 1180 - 1223) onward, so this would also match the 1200 starting date for primogeniture. Unfortunately, I don't have any direct source for this claim except for my vague memory.

 

[Atalvyr]

Partible inheritance would be tolerable if I could at least decide which titles each son gets AND sons who are married to landed women are excluded, they already got some land after all.

In CK2 you could preemptively give your younger sons land under gavelkind, which was then "subtracted" from the amount they would inherit. It was not without restrictions, though, in order to avoid the player cheesing to system too much. I expect it is the same in CK3. On death the titles will be distributed in a more logical manner according to Paradox, so the split is more logical.

I don't think it counted sons who married into land as landed though, but I am also not sure it should be counted. It is not technically land they own and they would not necessarily inherit it if their spouse died. If CK3 changes it so that the spouse inherits ahead of children (as often happened with female rulers), then I would agree that sons married into titles should have those titles subtracted from their gavelkind expectations.

 

[Subcomandante]

No more race for primogeniture is good. It means more dynastic characters of importance, more scheming, more cousin marriages, power struggles between houses, more ragequitting when you lose all your hard won extra duchies...

But! More dynasts who are independent of the player means more Renown too. So you can do more as dynasty head, get more Splendor and more Legacies.

 

[wolfgag]

In CK2 you could preemptively give your younger sons land under gavelkind, which was then "subtracted" from the amount they would inherit. It was not without restrictions, though, in order to avoid the player cheesing to system too much. I expect it is the same in CK3. On death the titles will be distributed in a more logical manner according to Paradox, so the split is more logical.

I don't think it counted sons who married into land as landed though, but I am also not sure it should be counted. It is not technically land they own and they would not necessarily inherit it if their spouse died. If CK3 changes it so that the spouse inherits ahead of children (as often happened with female rulers), then I would agree that sons married into titles should have those titles subtracted from their gavelkind expectations.

Husbands of landed women typically controlled their estates jure uxoris and obviously personally benefited from their wife's position and income even if they didn't "hold the title" in CK's artificial terms. The lands typically are inherited by the husband's children.

The point of splitting the inheritance is to secure property and position for all the sons and ensure the survival of their respective lines. A son marrying an heiress satisfies that, in my mind. Come to think, what about adventurers or crusade recipients? If they strike out on their own they'll get nothing from me.

It's my land, I'll distribute it how I please €];^)

 

[Bobwoodword]

I vastly prefer fractured and disjointed maps so I am 100% okay with this. I can understand why some people wouldn't be though.