No primogeniture before 1200?

[DreadLindwyrm]

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



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.

And wouldn't you know it, free weak hooks (and bonus relations) on (at least) house members!

 

[vnth]

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.

Gavelkind is very much a feudal practice, which had influences from tribal and Roman practices. There is no feudal inheritance that isn't gavelkind in early to high middle ages, and primo came later. This is indisputable.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Gavelkind is very much a feudal practice, which had influences from tribal and Roman practices. There is no feudal inheritance that isn't gavelkind in early to high middle ages, and primo came later. This is indisputable.

You are factually wrong.

Gavelkind is a very specific form of partible inheritance, and *similar* but not identical practices existed elsewhere, under different names and different rules.

I was also responding to you saying that gavelkind is "shorthand for the feudal tradition". It isn't, as shown by other methods of succession happening under feudalism - such as primogeniture under late feudal administration.

Some areas of England functioned under a modified form of ultimogeniture during the mid and late feudal eras, sometimes explicitly, sometimes as a "last resort" inheritance where there was no explicit will to divide the property up (presumably to protect the younger children still living with their parents against elder siblings who would have trades, family, or land already).

There were some unusual cases of inheritances being specifically to *second* sons as well, and at least one complicated clause for a title where it passed as if by primogeniture except that it could never be inherited by or united with another specified title.

 

[vnth]

You are factually wrong.

Gavelkind is a very specific form of partible inheritance, and *similar* but not identical practices existed elsewhere, under different names and different rules.

I was also responding to you saying that gavelkind is "shorthand for the feudal tradition". It isn't, as shown by other methods of succession happening under feudalism - such as primogeniture under late feudal administration.

Some areas of England functioned under a modified form of ultimogeniture during the mid and late feudal eras, sometimes explicitly, sometimes as a "last resort" inheritance where there was no explicit will to divide the property up (presumably to protect the younger children still living with their parents against elder siblings who would have trades, family, or land already).

There were some unusual cases of inheritances being specifically to *second* sons as well, and at least one complicated clause for a title where it passed as if by primogeniture except that it could never be inherited by or united with another specified title.

Then your 'also' should have been your main argument. But more importantly, the same thing counts against your argument. Ultimo can include the entirety of estate, but not necessarily. A lot of time, it is simply a type of partible, much like high partible, only inverse. Unless you can give some specific date as to when ultimo includes the whole inheritance? And, as I made clear, early and high middles ages were intrinsically linked to partible as you would. The decision to set it to 1200 is idiotic mechanically, like taking away coats of arms because it didn't exist in the early period, but it's historically valid.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Then your 'also' should have been your main argument. But more importantly, the same thing counts against your argument. Ultimo can include the entirety of estate, but not necessarily. A lot of time, it is simply a type of partible, much like high partible, only inverse. Unless you can give some specific date as to when ultimo includes the whole inheritance? And, as I made clear, early and high middles ages were intrinsically linked to partible as you would. The decision to set it to 1200 is idiotic mechanically, like taking away coats of arms because it didn't exist in the early period, but it's historically valid.

It doesn't undermine anything I said, because I was not stating that "ultimogeniture is feudalism", or that the specific forms I mentioned - and notice I said a modified form, with caveats - of ultimogeniture were in use, in response to you asserting that there is no inheritance except gavelkind in feudal society.

And, bear with me here, the ultimogeniture forms I mentioned may have been partible, but they weren't gavelkind. Gavelkind is a specific inheritance form with specific laws. So specific, that it doesn't appear to have been the accepted form for even the whole of historic Kent, much less the rest of England, and even less the whole of the feudal model.

 

[vnth]

It doesn't undermine anything I said, because I was not stating that "ultimogeniture is feudalism", or that the specific forms I mentioned - and notice I said a modified form, with caveats - of ultimogeniture were in use, in response to you asserting that there is no inheritance except gavelkind in feudal society.

And, bear with me here, the ultimogeniture forms I mentioned may have been partible, but they weren't gavelkind. Gavelkind is a specific inheritance form with specific laws. So specific, that it doesn't appear to have been the accepted form for even the whole of historic Kent, much less the rest of England, and even less the whole of the feudal model.

Well, then, unless you can find the date for whole ultimo, it's clear that partible is feudalism.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Well, then, unless you can find the date for whole ultimo, it's clear that partible is feudalism.

Except that feudalism didn't die out with the switch from partible to non-partible inheritances, and non-feudal estates (such as allodial estate) and tribal lands could also pass by partible inheritance so partible inheritance is *not* feudalism. Partible inheritances were also used pre- and post- feudally, including in such well known non-feudal states as the United States of America (obviously well out of time frame, but relevant for partible inheritance not being necessarily feudal).

It is one form that was used within the context of feudalism, but the two are not the same.

 

[vnth]

Except that feudalism didn't die out with the switch from partible to non-partible inheritances, and non-feudal estates (such as allodial estate) and tribal lands could also pass by partible inheritance so partible inheritance is *not* feudalism. Partible inheritances were also used pre- and post- feudally, including in such well known non-feudal states as the United States of America (obviously well out of time frame, but relevant for partible inheritance not being necessarily feudal).

It is one form that was used within the context of feudalism, but the two are not the same.

Eh, this is a tautological argument. To say that some lands are held in types other than partible is the same as saying in non-feudal types and the same as saying there is limits to feudalism which didn't completely take over everything. The fact of the matter is, partible is unique and influential enough to be regarded as the fundamental inheritance characteristic. And nothing stay in one place. Partible was feudalism, and then it was less so.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Eh, this is a tautological argument. To say that some lands are held in types other than partible is the same as saying in non-feudal types and the same as saying there is limits to feudalism which didn't completely take over everything. The fact of the matter is, partible is unique and influential enough to be regarded as the fundamental inheritance characteristic. And nothing stay in one place. Partible was feudalism, and then it was less so.

If partible inheritance predates feudalism how can partible inheritance *be* feudalism?

 

[vnth]

If partible inheritance predates feudalism how can partible inheritance *be* feudalism?

What do you mean? Feudalism isn't brand new. Like just about everything else in the world, it was a sum of its influences. The word count and prince and numerous other were borrowed Roman terms which then got mixed with tribal practices.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

What do you mean? Feudalism isn't brand new. Like just about everything else in the world, it was a sum of its influences. The word count and prince and numerous other were borrowed Roman terms which then got mixed with tribal practices.

Partible inheritances existed in tribal, pre-feudal societies contemporaneous with Rome.

Ergo, saying that partible inheritances *are* feudalism cannot be correct.

The same applies with regard to them surviving feudalism by a significant timeframe, and other practices existing during the age of feudalism.

Yes, it's *a* practice within the context of feudalism, but the two cannot and should not be identified this closely.


But we've probably taken up enough of this thread which is about "should there be any primogeniture before 1200", not the details of partible inheritance - which could be a thread on its own, and might find some interesting variants that mods (or Paradox) might pick up on.

 

[vnth]

Partible inheritances existed in tribal, pre-feudal societies contemporaneous with Rome.

Ergo, saying that partible inheritances *are* feudalism cannot be correct.

The same applies with regard to them surviving feudalism by a significant timeframe, and other practices existing during the age of feudalism.

Yes, it's *a* practice within the context of feudalism, but the two cannot and should not be identified this closely.


But we've probably taken up enough of this thread which is about "should there be any primogeniture before 1200", not the details of partible inheritance - which could be a thread on its own, and might find some interesting variants that mods (or Paradox) might pick up on.

Partible is not just a practice. It's the practice because for a long time, it was the only. To say that it predates feudalism is irrelevant, because feudalism came because of other preexisting conditions, not sprung out of nowhere. Feudalism, in fact, requires factors that predated it.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Partible is not just a practice. It's the practice because for a long time, it was the only. To say that it predates feudalism is irrelevant, because feudalism came because of other preexisting conditions, not sprung out of nowhere. Feudalism, in fact, requires factors that predated it.

OK, look. I'm bowing out of this thread, because this is taking over.

It'd be best discussed as a separate thread, because you are deeply misunderstanding the context of partible inheritances, and the alternatives that existed at various times.

 

[vnth]

OK, look. I'm bowing out of this thread, because this is taking over.

It'd be best discussed as a separate thread, because you are deeply misunderstanding the context of partible inheritances, and the alternatives that existed at various times.

If by the last part you mean feudalism isn't a monolithic or well-defined institution then sure.

 

[Battlex]

You are factually wrong.

Gavelkind is a very specific form of partible inheritance, and *similar* but not identical practices existed elsewhere, under different names and different rules.

I was also responding to you saying that gavelkind is "shorthand for the feudal tradition". It isn't, as shown by other methods of succession happening under feudalism - such as primogeniture under late feudal administration.

Some areas of England functioned under a modified form of ultimogeniture during the mid and late feudal eras, sometimes explicitly, sometimes as a "last resort" inheritance where there was no explicit will to divide the property up (presumably to protect the younger children still living with their parents against elder siblings who would have trades, family, or land already).

There were some unusual cases of inheritances being specifically to *second* sons as well, and at least one complicated clause for a title where it passed as if by primogeniture except that it could never be inherited by or united with another specified title.

Any further reading you've got on that or sources? As ultimogeniture in England sounds like a very interesting concept indeed

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Any further reading you've got on that or sources? As ultimogeniture in England sounds like a very interesting concept indeed

Unfortunately the source I've seen listed for this is *old* encyclopedia Britannica editions (1878 and 1911), so I've not got an easy way to link you to them.

 

[Battlex]

Unfortunately the source I've seen listed for this is *old* encyclopedia Britannica editions (1878 and 1911), so I've not got an easy way to link you to them.

Well what was the title of the pages? They might digitised it on the website

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Well what was the title of the pages? They might digitised it on the website

They don't give a page heading in the reference, but the keyword appears to be "Borough English" (might be "Borough-English").

 

[CyberianK]

High Partition seems to be a "High Medieval" technology. Anyone knows when that's available in a 867 start?

With High partition seems you can keep your realm (main Kingdom/Empire title) but loose half of your demesne if you don't have additional titles to give out. Would be interesting if you can land the other sons before succession happens to have a bit more control about it.

 

[Atalvyr]

With High partition seems you can keep your realm (main Kingdom/Empire title) but loose half of your demesne if you don't have additional titles to give out. Would be interesting if you can land the other sons before succession happens to have a bit more control about it.

You could in CK2, so I am sure you can also pre-emptively divide land in CK3. A nice feature they have added is that if you go to the succession tab, you can now see how your titles would be distributed if you were to die. So if you keep and eye on that tab, you can see how granting your younger sons titles changes what they will get on your death.