Yes that sounds very helpful and potentially what a big part of the early game will be about
No primogeniture before 1200?
- Thread starter Karlington
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I'm talking about the Middle Ages as the common historiographical concept and as represented in Crusader Kings (ended in the XVth century). Whathever happened in the XVI century and after doesn't apply. Also the concept Ancien Regime is quite unuseful as it takes for granted that things were the same for centuries as they were in 1789. We are not talking about the same thing here. In the Early Modern Period (XVI-XVIII) Primogeniture was quite stronger as Monarchies became stronger and more centralized, and appanages became more ceremonial than real. Those centuries do not represent well the system of the Late Middle Ages (XIII-XV)
You didn't quote the full title The Institutions of France Under the Absolute Monarchy, 1598-1789. As with the thing before he topic is way out of the time period, even the Valois aren't kings anymore. Also the Absolute Monarchy of France is in the XVII and XVIII centuries, not the IX to XV that Crusader Kings represents.
There were not unlanded french princes so we don't know. However being unlanded didn't stop claimants of other kingdoms in their way to the throne, like Enrique de Trastámara, so we can suppose unlanded princes would also have te option of acquiring external or internal support to their claim.
The distinction between fief and appanage started in the XVI century and in fact out of the conflict with the Burgundian Succession
Paul Saenger, "Burgundy and the Inalienability of Appanages in the Reign of Louis XI", French Historical Studies Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1977), pp. 1-26 (26 pages)
And about appanages being part of the crown land:
Page 4:
Doesn't seem like appanages worked as part of the Royal Domain.
Page 8:
So apanagees considered they shared the prerogatives of the crown with the king.
There's so much more so I would still advise to read the whole article.
Actually Charles of Valois (1446-1472) got quite the support of the League of the Public Weal when he decided that the Duchy of Berry was too small and that wanted the Duchy of Normandy and rebelled in 1465. In fact he ended getting it.
Primogeniture was formulated. Just not the strong primogeniture we have in the game where one heir gets everything while the other gets nothing. As an example a primary source: The Fuero General of Navarra, kind of the "constitution" of the Kingdom of Navarra. The Fuero was compiled in the XIII century, around the middle of the century. Navarra at that time was under the French Dynasty of Champagne, their kings being also Counts of Champagne and Brie, and had a strong French influence consequence of people of French origin being an important part of the members of Cities' councils.
Pages 47-48:
Here is a translation from navarrese romance so that it may be easier to understand:
Here we can see that primogeniture is clearly formulated. However in the next chapter...
And here we have partition and, in case of a succession crysis, elective.
As you can see in the same law is not strange to find primogeniture, partition and elective at the same time. What used to happen in the Late Middle Ages (XIII-XV centuries) is that primogeniture only applied to the title of king while the other sons took part in the possessions of his father and some of the other titles he may had apart from the kingly ones. This is what already happens when you have Gavelkind but only a king title, the firstborn gets the crown, the rest titles under them.
History corroborates this when you see that the Kings of Navarra distributed their titles on death, even the appanages that they had in France.
- Philip III of Navarra left the Kingdom of Navarra and the county of Evreux to his firstborn Charles. But gave the second, Philip, the county of Longeville, and the third, Louis, the county of Beaumont in appanage.
- His son Charles II "le Mauvais" also gave the county of Mortain to his second son Peter, as an appanage.
French kings never had another kingdom title apart from Navarra (that as we can see was already a primogeniture when they received it) so we don't know what they would do if they were kings of several kingdoms. But we do know they gave appanages to every son.
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
I clarified very specifically the dates of all references. As I've said, things are codified from traditional practices. As the Saenger's paper makes clear, the unalienable concept had origin in the revertible clause of the 15th century. This, in turn, was informally practiced since the 13th century. The first recorded instance was when Louis the Lion's took back the fief of the dead Alphonse of Poitiers instead of letting his nearest relative inherit it. This was done through Parliament. To prevent more instances of this, Louis's son Saint Louis made it into law that direct female heirs can inherit princely fiefs, but not near relative. Philip III was able to get back Anjou by claiming it the dowry of Margeret of Anjou, even though this had no justification whatsoever as Margaret had brothers. Philip the Fair was the first to insert a clause that forbids all female heir to the fiefs of his sons.
I'm not sure you realize that even in your own quoted passage, it is mentioned the word de facto?
Yes. Which is all the more reason to limit the inheritance of princes, which is the point of primo. Unlanded princes would get support if their cause is just, which is why they legally were not owed peerage under primo.
I'm glad you mentioned this. This is primo working as intended. All princes wanted more land, but in this case, Berry couldn't actually claim this as his reason. The 'official' reason was the tyranny of Louis XI. Likewise, Berry received support not because of his rights being violated, but because the various vassals hated the centralize attempts of the Valois government.
I don't know why you bother to dispute this. I never said anything about how popular primo was at any given point.
Last edited:
Decision to Unite Pomerania, Bohemia, and Poland into one kingdom. So it seems like all cultures get some unify decision so no primogeniture really isn't an issue for Kings, just dukes
- 1
You want sources because you don't believe what I'm saying. I give you sources, now you want are asking me about what they say when you are going to dismiss it anyway. Read or don't, whatever.
- 1
It's not that hard to summarize the author's argument in a single sentence, especially if you are using it yourself to argue something, you should already know what it is. I only ask for a single source.
Summarising to a single sentence (especially as someone who isn't an expert in the field) can result in a weak or flawed representation of a whole book, and will inevitably leave out nuances and shadings of meaning.
It's not always easy to give a fair and balanced version of an argument in one sentence.
- 2
Then use more sentences. If a person can't do that, their argument is certainly questionable. I'm not begging anyone to have a conversation with me. If you can't articulate your view, how do you expect anyone to have a conversation with you?
Are you for real? I asked for as little as possible for their convenience.
Okay, I didn't read the whole thread but I came to comment on the specific point raised in the title. This was a really, *really* bad idea. Gavelkind for 80% of the game ruins the fun, at some point we want to feel like we earned some stability instead of plotting in various gamey ways to kill our second sons.
I can deal with it in 867, that's fine because that's the price you pay for the extra time. But Primo should be a High Middle Ages tech, NOT a Late Middle ages tech. I get why they tried it, it's fun to draw things out, but this is several bridges too far. It's both largely ahistorical and not fun, plus it removes a major incentive to play the second scenario. Please move primo to High Middle Ages techs.
I can deal with it in 867, that's fine because that's the price you pay for the extra time. But Primo should be a High Middle Ages tech, NOT a Late Middle ages tech. I get why they tried it, it's fun to draw things out, but this is several bridges too far. It's both largely ahistorical and not fun, plus it removes a major incentive to play the second scenario. Please move primo to High Middle Ages techs.
- 5
- 1
- 1
If you're not getting to the late medieval era until 80% of the way through the game (1337 from an 867 start), then you must have really made some mistakes with cultural innovations.
- 2
Most people don't play till 1453. Locking something till after 1200 essentially means it'll never be available in many playthroughs, and only for a small amount of time in others. It's just not fun.
Besides Primo isn't that great, you still have to live with your first kid as heir. If primo was moved to 1066, there's still room for improvements to be available by tech in 1200, such as offering the option of disinheriting or a born-in-the-purple like mechanic to actually choose your heir among the kids. There's clearly a way to make this work better than this.
Besides Primo isn't that great, you still have to live with your first kid as heir. If primo was moved to 1066, there's still room for improvements to be available by tech in 1200, such as offering the option of disinheriting or a born-in-the-purple like mechanic to actually choose your heir among the kids. There's clearly a way to make this work better than this.
- 1
- 1
Why do people assume primo would be easier as it would mean other family members would just compete to be heir
- 2
To me it's a lot better, makes it harder to hold things together, and makes you pay attention to your whole dynasty.
- 3
It IS historically accurate. CK 2 was historically inaccurate. Gavelkind/partition or whatever you name it was common throughout Europe and thoughout most of the medieval ages and finally led to so called feudal fragmentation. For instance feudal fragmentation of Poland ended in 1320(!) when Władysław Łokietek was crowned and the tradition of primogeniture started. Before it gavelkind/partition or seniority was in the force. And maybe gavelkind would have lasted even longer in Poland if Łokietek hadn't had only one son.
Maybe it was because after adoption of primogeniture players became too powerfull with multiple kingdoms and an empire(s) and game wasn't interesting any longer?
In my opinion restriction of primogeniture was an outstanding move by Paradox. It makes the game much more historically accurate, challenging and playable. I can finally feel a real king which must struggle to keep his authority. I hope Paradox won't change it!
Last edited:
- 3
If it "isn't that great," why is it an issue that it's not available sooner?
Now if you start in 1066 you're 134 years from 1200. Considering how time flies in the early game, it's not really that long. Granted, it'll take a decade or two to unlock primogeniture after it becomes available, but I think most serious campaigns probably last a good bit past 1200.
- 1
Oh come on, blobbing is already super easy in this game. And due to the primary heir inheriting all MAA, reuniting the domain isn't even a big challenge after an election. It's a minor inconvenience that provides a bit of variety.
- 1
Yup, that is how the Capetians kept France from splintering the way the Carolingians allowed their realm to.
It would be nice if the game could model that in some fashion, but as it stands now, it explicitly blocks granting your heir such additional titles.
- 2
Keeping dynasts under my power and making renown would be one of the easiest define mods to make, if it did not exist on the workshop already.
- Status