No primogeniture before 1200?

[vnth]

Gavelkind is very particular to some areas of Kent.

**Partition** successions may be particular to Germans and Romans, but these also had an existence for the British and Irish, although on a different basis (that probably also won't be representable for Ireland because it was a headache and a half to predict).

Germanic tribes. It's a shorthand to say the feudal tradition.

 

[vnth]

So if you have primogeniture you have something to do, but if you have partition/gavelkind you have nothing to do but twiddle your thumbs? Say what?

If you mean whether there are things under primo you can do but under gavel you can't (unless getting rid of your family), then there certainly are. Having just the right amount the power allows you to aid allies, interfering in world's affairs.

 

[Battlex]

Oh, you meant CK3, not CK2. But traditions? Where did that game term come from?

CK3 and ck2, traditions because the guy was saying he'd ignore tradition? When the game mechanics are built upon what paradox understands to be traditional for the medieval era

 

[vnth]

You can constantly expand via wars and claims, you can also just spend your money developing rather than waging war

"Or if I have no other thing to do except sitting in one place and twiddle my thumbs," as in if I have no objective whatsoever, not that I would have nothing to do. Developing a single county to max alone is probably only sufficient to take another county, and then, I don't like being a war-monger.

 

[Alejandro Cauchy]

LIFE HACK
1. never marry
2. sire a string of illegitimate sons
3. legitimise the first / best one
4. if he dies legitimise the 2nd best
5. ???
6. profit

Yup. Marry royal grandmas.

 

[Karlington]

CK3 and ck2, traditions because the guy was saying he'd ignore tradition? When the game mechanics are built upon what paradox understands to be traditional for the medieval era

I gotta be honest, that is super confusing and unclear, man. If you mean innovations just say "innovations," heh. And when the guy said he doesn't care about traditions I don't think he in any way meant that he was going to refuse to research culture- or region-specific innovations in CK3. Come on, man.

 

[Subcomandante]

LIFE HACK
1. never marry
2. sire a string of illegitimate sons
3. legitimise the first / best one
4. if he dies legitimise the 2nd best
5. ???
6. profit

What are the mechanics to balance this?

- You have a string of children who get claims and are angry. They will wander off and try to find somebody to press their claim. But few will find success, and anyway the legitimized sibling probably has enough concentrated power to counter such attacks. If they don't wander then they'll sit and scheme, but they would do that anyway given they have claims.

- It is likely you'll destroy all your non-primary titles, so with regular partition the siblings would be your vassals. This means that legitimizing only one sibling will not lose you Renown, as vassal kin doesn't give you Renown

- "Siring a string of illegitimate sons" might not be a foregone conclusion in CK3. While you can seduce people without the lifestyle, it's probably more difficult to do so. This will railroad you into the seduction lifestyle. But on the other hand many bastards are not essential for the cheesy tactic. And you'll likely always find somebody.

- You can die before you decided who the best son is. Then your plan might come apart disastrously.

- If you never marry you'll not get the spouse bonuses. But again with concentrated power, this probably doesn't matter.


-> So the other way is to play it straight, and allow siblings to inherit. This can give a multiple of the Renown, but a fraction of the power. More Renown will make things run smoother in the long run, but so do lots of soldiers. The game becomes one where you manage your kin in such a way that they help you achieve the next feudal level. It also depends on how much influence all those disinherited bastards can wield in the world. It could get hairy if you have 10 siblings working hard to get the goods after all.

 

[King Anund]

The practice of giving out appanages is informal

At any rate, the significance of it being part of the royal demense is that they are giving by goodwill alone.

Again, appanage is granted by free will and does not need to be equitable.

you are not legally required to give anything

I find quite hard to believe that every monarch through five centuries was so goodwilled to give some piece of his land to secondary sons or brothers out of their good will only when the were not legally required. Even the most centralist ones. It is really hard to find a son of a French king who was left without an appanage, unless he was a cleric of some sort.

Also no king was legally required to do anything in his kingdom, as in theory his sovereignty was absolute. However we know that was never the case, and the power of the king was limited by several factors, one of the most relevant ones being custom.

and the phrase appanages are an extension of the royal lands are quoted by me from other texts, not invented

Then tell me where did you take it from.

This is because under primo, even the eldest is just the custodian of the patrimony, and no one can claim to be owner.

siblings can't contest anything, bu they won't be happy either, precisely because they can't contest anything

existence to stop them from rebelling, but that never work.

They can't contest but they did contest?

No. His understanding of what Burgundy is is entirely conventional.

Entirely conventional for a XVI century Renaissance prince who followed the trend of the time of strenghtening monarchical power at the cost of the other forces in the realm. Francis is no medieval king, why would he argue like one?

The famous Commentaries on the Laws of England by William Blackstone deals with the origin of primogeniture laws extensively.

A jurist and politician of the XVIII century is not what I could call reliable for talking about the Middle Ages.

The codification came later, but the practice had been there prior. I exact date is debated,

So primogeniture is a custom, not a law, just like giving appanages. And it isn't even clear where it started so we could expect some sort of mixed thing in-between.

but it is universally mentioned that primogeniture is practiced since late medieval period.

So, after 1200 then. Also universally mentioned by whom?

It's absurd to believe that people had been trying to do the same thing for centuries with abject failure but still keep at it.

But the fact is for most times it worked like a charm. France is one of the Kingdoms with the most stable successions, specially related to sibling claimants. Appanages helped to that to a high extent.

I hope you use the word remnant intentionally because it what appanages are. They are not gavelkind.

I never said they were gavelkind, just a custom that points to a concept where no heir should be left without anything.

I'm not concern about what those idiots in the middle ages did.

Yeah, that I got clear. However, Crusader Kings is a game about what Middle Ages' idiots did. That's why we don't have railroads, tanks, transatlantic voyages or interstellar wars. I can't see why anyone uninterested in the Middle Ages would like a game about the Middle Ages.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Germanic tribes. It's a shorthand to say the feudal tradition.

Then that's a wild misuse.

Feudal tradition doesn't equate to gavelkind.


And gavelkind isn't a general term (depite the mistake CK2 made). It's a specific system, and just one example of how partible inheritances work.

 

[Karlington]

I can't see why anyone uninterested in the Middle Ages would like a game about the Middle Ages.

They might just like good strategy games in any setting. Nothing wrong with that!

 

[wolfgag]

MIDDLE GROUND*: a succession law that requires all junior heirs to be landed at the king's death to avoid steep opinion penalties.

On succession, the primary heir receives the whole royal estate undivided, but if his brothers have no land** then all the family and vassals will get a steep opinion malus destabilising the kingdom, until the primary heir compensates them.

That way the custom of giving juniors a portion is respected, the player still has control over which sons get which titles, certain ambitious players could risk it and exclude younger sons, and the player's demesne isn't unduly diminished at death by the steep restrictions of any partition law. (In the most generous of the partition laws the primary heir gets only at least HALF? Insanity! Madness! Outrage! I'm only half-kidding!) The malus could apply even if the heirs are landed if you are stingy? It could stack with the number of titles you have at death. "Stingy relative: -50" or something.

Such an intermediate succession could be made available to everyone in one of the earlier*** eras or "tech phases."

*Or rather, the more historical version of medieval primogeniture?
**Or aren't married to landed women, IMO. I gave my reasons earlier.
***Earlier than 1200. Obviously I don't believe in time locks but it's what we got.

 

[Karlington]

"Scandinavian Elective", where a rulers kids are electable with the military might of each son is a large factor.

Has there been any information on what this consists of, i.e. Is it just prowess, is it troops for landed sons, or something else entirely?

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.

In feudal realms the amount of levies and taxes you get are unaffected by opinion, so you'll still get more out of unhappy vassals under high authority than happy vassals under less authority (up until they revolt, heh). Opinion still matters for clan realms, though, just like in CK2.

 

[Riamus]

As with all things, there are exceptions, Herod's tetrarchy, Solomon and Jehoahaz, so on. The right of the firstborn can also be given away, as the famous story of Esau and Jacob demonstrates, but the rule is unclear, since this also contradicts the Torah, which stipulates that it cannot be sold. But generally, the firstborn has special rights and religious connotation. The First Passover marked the death of the Pharaoh's and Egypt's firstborns. The eldest inherits a portion double to the other son according to Deuteronomy.

I don't think I'd consider it primogeniture, though. Yes, firstborn got a double share, but that didn't mean the others didn't get a share. In primogeniture, only the firstborn gets the titles unless you choose to hand some out to others. I'm not sure what the best fit for succession type of the Jews during that time period would be, but I don't think primogeniture is accurate. It could perhaps even by called Gravelkind with a double share for the firstborn (and doesn't gravelkind give the "best" to the firstborn anyhow, which would make it pretty accurate?)

Also, the issue with Esau and Jacob I think was a bit unique, though it may potentially have happened more than once. What it amounted to was Esau choosing not to get the best share of the inheritance, which I doubt would happen often. And just because someone does something doesn't mean there isn't a rule that they broke. Not everyone follows the rules.

And of course the later "theft" of the blessing for the firstborn was all intrigue and wouldn't have been allowed, I don't think, if done without subterfuge. But once done, as a religious rite, it couldn't be undone.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I don't think I'd consider it primogeniture, though. Yes, firstborn got a double share, but that didn't mean the others didn't get a share. In primogeniture, only the firstborn gets the titles unless you choose to hand some out to others. I'm not sure what the best fit for succession type of the Jews during that time period would be, but I don't think primogeniture is accurate. It could perhaps even by called Gravelkind with a double share for the firstborn (and doesn't gravelkind give the "best" to the firstborn anyhow, which would make it pretty accurate?)

Also, the issue with Esau and Jacob I think was a bit unique, though it may potentially have happened more than once. What it amounted to was Esau choosing not to get the best share of the inheritance, which I doubt would happen often. And just because someone does something doesn't mean there isn't a rule that they broke. Not everyone follows the rules.

And of course the later "theft" of the blessing for the firstborn was all intrigue and wouldn't have been allowed, I don't think, if done without subterfuge. But once done, as a religious rite, it couldn't be undone.

If the firstborn gets a double portion, then perhaps High Partion?

The primary heir gets half, the others split the remainder.

It's not exact, but it reflects the concept of the firstborn being special.
Or perhaps there's a "Jewish partition" special cultural law that does simply count the firstborn twice when giving out inheritance?


There's a saying (at least in safety law) that if there's a law against it, it's because people have done it before. Perhaps there's a biblical law against it because people *did* sell the right far too often, so the priesthood stepped in.

 

[Riamus]

There's a saying (at least in safety law) that if there's a law against it, it's because people have done it before. Perhaps there's a biblical law against it because people *did* sell the right far too often, so the priesthood stepped in.

Like don't use the iron in the bathtub? (or maybe it was hairdryer, I forget exactly)

 

[vnth]

I find quite hard to believe that every monarch through five centuries was so goodwilled to give some piece of his land to secondary sons or brothers out of their good will only when the were not legally required. Even the most centralist ones. It is really hard to find a son of a French king who was left without an appanage, unless he was a cleric of some sort.

Are you talking about the 'middle age' or for the entirety of the old regime? Since the 16th century when things are neatly codified, what an appanage is is beyond doubt.

Roland Mousnier's Institutions of France Under Absolute Monarchy states that "The appanage of a prince of the blood and son or grandson of France was what given to him so that he might live in a manner appropriate to his estate...The king made up appanages out of fief under the Crown's jurisdiction having at least the dignity of duchy or county."

Princes are only entitled to the dignity, which may included many things to maintain, but not necessarily peerage directly. The fact that it's up to the king to decide what the fief would be means that it doesn't need to be equitable. Under even high partition, younger sons are entitled to a very specific amount of property no matter how small so that his brother can't cheat him.

When things are codified in the parliament edict of May 1711, it is stated that "they were entitled to entree, seance, and voix deliberative...even if they possessed no peerage." The princes are entitled to a lot of thing, but not title. As a matter of practice, however, they were always given title.

The earlier you go, the more opaque. Since the beginning of the practice of granting appanage that the pattern remained largely the same. Despite the expansion of the French royal domain, the princes got a single revertible title called appanage. Since there had been no conflict directly related to appanage, it was impossible to know for certain. The earliest has been with Emperor Charles V. Up until Philip V, even the succession law of France itself was muddy.

They can't contest but they did contest?

Landed princes are in the position to act extralegally but unlanded don't. Is this a difficult concept?

Entirely conventional for a XVI century Renaissance prince who followed the trend of the time of strenghtening monarchical power at the cost of the other forces in the realm. Francis is no medieval king, why would he argue like one?

If youd bother to read up even the secondary sources on the topic instead of simply espousing nonsense that you think is good sense, then you's realize that the Burgundy itself had ratified the act that make it a part of the crown lands--like all other territories would once they became crown lands--since John II. The contract that defines the legal condition of crown lands isn't new.

A jurist and politician of the XVIII century is not what I could call reliable for talking about the Middle Ages.

Do you even know what's in it? This is called arguing in bad faith.

So primogeniture is a custom, not a law, just like giving appanages. And it isn't even clear where it started so we could expect some sort of mixed thing in-between.

Call it whatever you want. The difference is that for princes under gavelkind, property dispute is valid in the sense that they will get feudal support. Princes under primo don't get support when they complaint that their land is too small.

So, after 1200 then.

Sure. Probably even later. Most believed the practices started from Saint Louis. As I said, I don't care about this.

Also universally mentioned by whom?

Just find one source that says primogeniture wasn't formulated since the late middle age.

But the fact is for most times it worked like a charm. France is one of the Kingdoms with the most stable successions, specially related to sibling claimants. Appanages helped to that to a high extent.

Yeah because nothing had changed since the Carolingian time.

Yeah, that I got clear. However, Crusader Kings is a game about what Middle Ages' idiots did. That's why we don't have railroads, tanks, transatlantic voyages or interstellar wars. I can't see why anyone uninterested in the Middle Ages would like a game about the Middle Ages.

Spare me your strawmen. I mentioned very specifically that only the tools of the medieval arsenal should be available. 'Interested in the Middle Ages?' What do people even know about the middle ages? People like whatever aspects they like and make inane arguments about how certain things are meaningful or significant or accurate, but other things conveniently 'should not stand in the way of the game being fun.' The very act of looking at the past is in itself anachronistic. Any claim to inhibit the medieval mind is in reality an exercise in make-believe.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Like don't use the iron in the bathtub? (or maybe it was hairdryer, I forget exactly)

Neither are especially practical.

 

[vnth]

I don't think I'd consider it primogeniture, though. Yes, firstborn got a double share, but that didn't mean the others didn't get a share. In primogeniture, only the firstborn gets the titles unless you choose to hand some out to others. I'm not sure what the best fit for succession type of the Jews during that time period would be, but I don't think primogeniture is accurate. It could perhaps even by called Gravelkind with a double share for the firstborn (and doesn't gravelkind give the "best" to the firstborn anyhow, which would make it pretty accurate?)

Also, the issue with Esau and Jacob I think was a bit unique, though it may potentially have happened more than once. What it amounted to was Esau choosing not to get the best share of the inheritance, which I doubt would happen often. And just because someone does something doesn't mean there isn't a rule that they broke. Not everyone follows the rules.

And of course the later "theft" of the blessing for the firstborn was all intrigue and wouldn't have been allowed, I don't think, if done without subterfuge. But once done, as a religious rite, it couldn't be undone.

I don't think even Blackstone claimed that it is exactly the same type as feudal primogeniture. He says that it was a lot less equal than the practices of the romans and the germans, whose only the title or rank, but not the bigger share of properties, is transferred to the principal heir.

 

[Battlex]

Like don't use the iron in the bathtub? (or maybe it was hairdryer, I forget exactly)

Don't use the toaster in the bathtub usually

MIDDLE GROUND*: a succession law that requires all junior heirs to be landed at the king's death to avoid steep opinion penalties.

On succession, the primary heir receives the whole royal estate undivided, but if his brothers have no land** then all the family and vassals will get a steep opinion malus destabilising the kingdom, until the primary heir compensates them.

That way the custom of giving juniors a portion is respected, the player still has control over which sons get which titles, certain ambitious players could risk it and exclude younger sons, and the player's demesne isn't unduly diminished at death by the steep restrictions of any partition law. (In the most generous of the partition laws the primary heir gets only at least HALF? Insanity! Madness! Outrage! I'm only half-kidding!) The malus could apply even if the heirs are landed if you are stingy? It could stack with the number of titles you have at death. "Stingy relative: -50" or something.

Such an intermediate succession could be made available to everyone in one of the earlier*** eras or "tech phases."

*Or rather, the more historical version of medieval primogeniture?
**Or aren't married to landed women, IMO. I gave my reasons earlier.
***Earlier than 1200. Obviously I don't believe in time locks but it's what we got.

Just adapt ck2 as having it happen under the hood is far better than a new player getting annoyed at the system :
-Unlanded sons give prestige hit, you'll also want sons to have land to help add to the dynastic legacies. Husbands of duchesses didn't get the Unlanded sons penalty.
-primogeniture gives a relations malus to non primary heirs, so land grants are needed to stop your dynasty rebelling against you, or being invited to foreign courts that then press their claim via war.

Characters move around courts alot more in ck3 than ck2 the devs have said, but making it harder to maintain good relations with your dynasty isn't something we know about yet.

Speaking of the various examples of inheritance we've talked about. Can someone look over Charles IV's inheritance and how it was divided amongst his sons

 

[Atalvyr]

Has there been any information on what this consists of, i.e. Is it just prowess, is it troops for landed sons, or something else entirely?

I only know the brief description OneProudBohemian gave in his video. Perhaps he will elaborate in the gameplay video he is teasing for tomorrow.

In feudal realms the amount of levies and taxes you get are unaffected by opinion, so you'll still get more out of unhappy vassals under high authority than happy vassals under less authority (up until they revolt, heh). Opinion still matters for clan realms, though, just like in CK2.

Ah, but if they are happy (autonomous vassals gives +10 opinion) you can make their contracts harsher without having an overall opinion penalty. If you just increase the contracts, they will have negative opinion and start factioning. If you can keep opinion up, you can run very high levies/taxes without having to hand out perks to offset the opinion hit. You just need hooks to do one-sided contract changes.