Partition is bad

[Stgerlachus]

This requires a good solution to the Mercia Problem, of course.

(The Mercia Problem: On the one hand, the King of all England should want to keep his capital in Middlesex or Hampshire rather than moving it to Leicester. On the other hand, the Petty Kingdom of Mercia needs to be a unit.)

I think the Mercia problem could be solved by only applying it to the de jure capital duchy. However that still leaves duchies such as Bavaria and West Franconia which are large enough that a ruler would never required lands outside that Duchy.

Then again, that's also an opportunity for interesting mechanics. For example, maybe you need to make sure to land all your sons (or at least your oldest X sons) before the mechanic kicks in. Maybe with a minimum tier title based on your primary title (if you're a King they need a Duchy). Which means if you can make sure to conquer (or revoke) land for them to get you're fine. This also makes it more dynamic and makes players feel more involved.

Another option would be to expand and adapt the confederate partition system. It already splits at the duchy/kingdom level. The problem is the specific algorithm it uses. If it runs out of kingdoms (or duchies) it could simply stop, too bad for the children after that. While right now it starts giving those random counties as far as I can tell. It should also come with a special CB that allows you to push all your claims against a sibling, so if they get multiple kingdoms (or duchies) you don't need multiple wars.

Honestly I feel that regular partition might be the most problematic. Because rather than creating and granting high level titles it starts to split up all the counties. So if you're an emperor under confederate partition you lose some direct vassals as your siblings take over, but if your domain is all in the capital kingdom you keep that (assuming you don't have too many siblings). Meanwhile under regular partition you'll still lose any kingdoms you hold, but because no new kingdoms are created you're more likely to also lose a significant part of your domain.

 

[Karlington]

150 Renown for a landless target. If they have any titles already, it goes up.

Wow, that is expensive!

I think it's clear that Renown costs were calculated based on the original system where there was no cap on earning Renown for number of dynasty members, yet stayed the same when the cap was introduced. I think the cap is a good thing, but the costs may need to be reworked a bit.

 

[grommile]

I think it's clear that Renown costs were calculated based on the original system where there was no cap on earning Renown for number of dynasty members, yet stayed the same when the cap was introduced. I think the cap is a good thing, but the costs may need to be reworked a bit.

Given the existence of things like the "Dynasty of Many Crowns" decision, I think the design goal is "you should want to spread your dynasty across many realms, not just have one big realm".

 

[Karlington]

Given the existence of things like the "Dynasty of Many Crowns" decision, I think the design goal is "you should want to spread your dynasty across many realms, not just have one big realm".

Sure. Doesn't detract from the point I was making, though.

 

[aono]

He chose to give his elder son Normandy. Though he wanted to disinherit him but was convinced otherwise. He then gave England to his second oldest surviving son (as you pointed out) and left his youngest son out of his will entirely.

That also isn't exactly true. Henry wasn't left out. He was given money with direct intention to allow him to buy lands (which he did), and he was supposed to get his mother's estate.
Still, my point was that idea of William using partition makes no sense is ridiculous. He was using partition historically. More then that, if you check you'll notice that his successors also had a habit to land their children (directly or through marriage), and whatever their succession habit was, it definitely wasn't CK3 primogeniture.

Henry had only one legitimate son (who died in 17), but he landed his bastards quite generously. Kingdom of England gone to his nephew (Stephen was a fourth son of Adele, daughter of William the Conqueror).
Stephen had three sons, and two of them bounced their mother title. Royal title gone to Henry II, who was, again, nephew through Empress Matilda, who was daughter (legitimate) of Henry I.
Henry II had 5 legitimate sons. William died 2. So, we had Henry, who was king of England (by design; he never ruled, which really, really was pissing him; died heirless); Richard Lionheart, who was Duke of Aquitane; Geoffrey, who was made a Duke of Brittany; John, who was specifically named "Lackland", as he was supposed to get only lands in Savoy by marriage, so he was granted only three castles (which pissed Henry out). His younger bastard also got lands - Earldom of Salisbury, and older bastard (and older son) was made Bishop of Lincoln (without actual being a priest; yes, it started to became even more complicated from here). His successor was Henry first, who dies; Richard then, who died heirless; John then.
John had two legitimate sons. Elder, Henry, became king (of England and Ireland, and also Duke of Aquitane), when lesser became an Earl of Cornwall.
Henry had, again, two sons, Edward and Edmund. Edward became a king, and Edmund was supposed to get Sicily, and until then he was Earl of Leicester and Lancaster.

...I'll allow myself not to continue list (I didn't end it on the king who break such a tradition, if you wonder, check Edward I, Edward II and Edward III yourself), but I think it's obvious - kings of England wasn't follow the idea of "elder son inherit everything his father had"; quite the opposite, they believed in idea that son of a king is entitled to some titles.

 

[Stgerlachus]

That also isn't exactly true. Henry wasn't left out. He was given money with direct intention to allow him to buy lands (which he did), and he was supposed to get his mother's estate.
Still, my point was that idea of William using partition makes no sense is ridiculous. He was using partition historically. More then that, if you check you'll notice that his successors also had a habit to land their children (directly or through marriage), and whatever their succession habit was, it definitely wasn't CK3 primogeniture.

Henry had only one legitimate son (who died in 17), but he landed his bastards quite generously. Kingdom of England gone to his nephew (Stephen was a fourth son of Adele, daughter of William the Conqueror).
Stephen had three sons, and two of them bounced their mother title. Royal title gone to Henry II, who was, again, nephew through Empress Matilda, who was daughter (legitimate) of Henry I.
Henry II had 5 legitimate sons. William died 2. So, we had Henry, who was king of England (by design; he never ruled, which really, really was pissing him; died heirless); Richard Lionheart, who was Duke of Aquitane; Geoffrey, who was made a Duke of Brittany; John, who was specifically named "Lackland", as he was supposed to get only lands in Savoy by marriage, so he was granted only three castles (which pissed Henry out). His younger bastard also got lands - Earldom of Salisbury, and older bastard (and older son) was made Bishop of Lincoln (without actual being a priest; yes, it started to became even more complicated from here). His successor was Henry first, who dies; Richard then, who died heirless; John then.
John had two legitimate sons. Elder, Henry, became king (of England and Ireland, and also Duke of Aquitane), when lesser became an Earl of Cornwall.
Henry had, again, two sons, Edward and Edmund. Edward became a king, and Edmund was supposed to get Sicily, and until then he was Earl of Leicester and Lancaster.

So he didn't give Henry any land. Succession in CK3 is about titles, not general inheritance (after all all gold and Men-at-Arms go to the primary heir). The fact that he was to get his mother's estate doesn't really make him an heir to his father. Though it does indicate an issue that will come back more often, that getting lands from a mother or wife was often considered an inheritance. So marrying off a child to an heiress or ruler should probably in some way affect their inheritance.

Let's start with Henry. His eldest son was Earl of Gloucester, that's true. But he wasn't landed by his father, he was married to the heiress of Gloucester. His second son Richard was brought up by the Bishop of Lincoln, he was never granted any land. Reginald was probably granted Cornwall, but this title was created for him, this is the closest to giving lands from the domain. Robert was married to an heiress to a barony, no information seems available for Gilbert or William. Henry was given some land, but from what I can tell it was much less than a county. Fulk might have been a monk. Nothing to be found on William. I wouldn't call that landing quite generously.

Stephen skipped one of his sons, and gave all his lands to Henry. Though this was hardly peaceful. When we come to Henry. Geoffrey was again not granted land from his father, he was married to the Duchess of Brittany. As you pointed out the same happened to John. William wasn't granted the Earldom of Salisbury, he was married to the countess of Salisbury. Geoffrey was indeed archbishop of York, but that too wasn't a title held by Henry. So here there was no land whatsoever owned by Henry granted to his sons, he just married them off to female rulers.

King John died in 1216, his younger son Richard was nominally granted the county of Poitou earldom of Cornwall in 1225. Cornwall was granted to him by his older brother as a birthday present.

Edmund was invested with the Kingdom of Sicily, sure but that was through the machinations of the pope, and he never held the title. He was indeed granted the earldoms of Lancaster and Leicester, but these were forfeited due to a rebellion and granted to him at that time. Which is hardly inheriting the personal domain of his father.

Basically what this comes down to is that they didn't cut their sons out of their inheritance entirely, and make sure they were in some way landed. But most of this would fall under the concept of appanage. Which is specifically the granting of titles to younger children who are not in line to inherit under primogeniture. Using the criteria you used primogeniture would never have existed, because there were virtually always younger children who were granted land in some way.

In CK3 terms, apart from William the Conquerors eldest son there isn't a single person you mentioned who was granted significant enough land to affect the power and influenced of the primary heir. And the only other person who was given significant land was probably Edmund and that had been forfeited. This is far closer to the in-game succession law of primogeniture than partition, though maybe one could argue for it to be something close to high partition, but even that is a stretch.

If I had to design a succession system using the in game mechanics to fit what happened in England I reckon it would be a form of partition where every child other than the primary heir who has a title, or is married to someone who does, is left out of the will. This system would not have cut out a single person who was granted land in your examples.

 

[aono]

So he didn't give Henry any land. Succession in CK3 is about titles, not general inheritance (after all all gold and Men-at-Arms go to the primary heir). The fact that he was to get his mother's estate doesn't really make him an heir to his father.

But it is. And it was how it was perceived, because lands got by marriage was Wilhelm's to rule and promise.

Using the criteria you used primogeniture would never have existed, because there were virtually always younger children who were granted land in some way.

...and that's why, I'd say, we're locked in some form of partition until quite late game - exactly because a system where one son just get everything at all, and others are, well, screwed, is virtually non-existent in history (and, actually, primogeniture as it is in game is a bone for players). That's my point, actually. I'm not vell-versed in French or German title inheritance history, but kingdom of England after Bastard conquer is awful historical example of CK3 primogeniture.
I mean, it's not "my criteria". It's the mechanic we had in game. CK3 primogeniture - "everything father owns goes to his elder valid son without any kind of exceptions or allowances or any special clauses".

Let's start with Henry.

Why? He had no legitimate male heir.

His eldest son was Earl of Gloucester, that's true. But he wasn't landed by his father, he was married to the heiress of Gloucester. His second son Richard was brought up by the Bishop of Lincoln, he was never granted any land.

Complicated, by the way. He was BARON of Gloucester jure uxoris, but EARL of Gloucester in his own right (because it was created for him specially). Not as it's exactly important, as he would get nothing by inheritance under CK3 system.
But anyway, just to clarify. Do you believe that anybody contemporal doesn't believe it was a situation of bastard son being landed by his father, or it was anything other that bastard son being landed by his father? The same about Brittany (with understanding that we're saying about legitimate son there).

Stephen skipped one of his sons, and gave all his lands to Henry.

Stephen skipped all of his legitimate sons who were alive at that point.

In CK3 terms, apart from William the Conquerors eldest son there isn't a single person you mentioned who was granted significant enough land to affect the power and influenced of the primary heir.

Richard the Lionheart. He got Aquitane, for gods sake. And yes, there is specific clause of "who owned Aquitane, Eleonore or Henry", but I think we can definitely guess Henry's position. He believed it's HIS lands (through marriage), and therefore his to grant (or, well, to mortage). And, as it was accepted as collaterial, it wasn't just his delusion.

This is far closer to the in-game succession law of primogeniture than partition, though maybe one could argue for it to be something close to high partition, but even that is a stretch.

In-game primogeniture - elder son gets everything, no other child gets anything. Look at examples above. Is it even close? If England was close to primogeniture, John the Lackland never would be considered as special clause (which he was up to, well, nickname).

If I had to design a succession system using the in game mechanics to fit what happened in England I reckon it would be a form of partition where every child other than the primary heir who has a title, or is married to someone who does, is left out of the will.

Beyond the idea about "people who are married to a person with title" (as in CK3 terms it's Robert FitzRoy, not his wife, would have a title of Gloucester, and it's Geoffrey would have title of Brittany, not his wife), it's exactly how you're supposed to play partition in CK3. You're giving your sons titles equalish to the "share" they would get otherwise, and therefore your domain stays to be granted to main heir.

The problem is, it's nearly impossible to create a system of inheritance which would be both realistically historical and playable (as very, very learned people in timeframe got their livings by trying to untangle the unholy mess that was called "inheritance customs of Medieval Europe in every particular clause"). But, I think, it's safe to assume that it wasn't in-game primogeniture (which, I'm reminding again, is "first heir gets everything, no other person gets anything"). Partition, with king in his life ensure his sons has enough land, fits quite better.
Yes, game engine force a player to do thing real life medieval rulers did quite voluntarily. I don't think it's a problem.

 

[Stgerlachus]

But it is. And it was how it was perceived, because lands got by marriage was Wilhelm's to rule and promise.

But it wasn't ever owned by his father, and therefore doesn't fall under partition, it wasn't his fathers realm that was partitioned, he was granted a title by marriage. And giving someone a title by marriage in CK3 doesn't count towards their inheritance.

...and that's why, I'd say, we're locked in some form of partition until quite late game - exactly because a system where one son just get everything at all, and others are, well, screwed, is virtually non-existent in history (and, actually, primogeniture as it is in game is a bone for players). That's my point, actually. I'm not vell-versed in French or German title inheritance history, but kingdom of England after Bastard conquer is awful historical example of CK3 primogeniture.
I mean, it's not "my criteria". It's the mechanic we had in game. CK3 primogeniture - "everything father owns goes to his elder valid son without any kind of exceptions or allowances or any special clauses".

But the problem is that partition is just as ahistorical, and from a game play perspective more so. The difference in practical power between most of these cases and primogeniture is negligible. The difference between these cases and partition as implemented in CK3 is enormous. Especially if you add in the huge difference between holding lands in your personal domain and as a vassal.

Complicated, by the way. He was BARON of Gloucester jure uxoris, but EARL of Gloucester in his own right (because it was created for him specially). Not as it's exactly important, as he would get nothing by inheritance under CK3 system.
But anyway, just to clarify. Do you believe that anybody contemporal doesn't believe it was a situation of bastard son being landed by his father, or it was anything other that bastard son being landed by his father? The same about Brittany (with understanding that we're saying about legitimate son there).

No, my point is that under the game rules of CK3 it isn't being landed by the father. And if you were to do that in game it wouldn't affect the inheritance. You can marry your youngest child to the Byzantine emperor and he'll still get the same share under partition.

Richard the Lionheart. He got Aquitane, for gods sake. And yes, there is specific clause of "who owned Aquitane, Eleonore or Henry", but I think we can definitely guess Henry's position. He believed it's HIS lands (through marriage), and therefore his to grant (or, well, to mortage). And, as it was accepted as collaterial, it wasn't just his delusion.

I missed that I'll admit. But again, this once more doesn't fit partition in CK3. He got that title from his mother, and Henry was set to get England. In CK3 both the titles in England and Aquitaine would have been split up. While in reality existing realms were kept together.

In-game primogeniture - elder son gets everything, no other child gets anything. Look at examples above. Is it even close? If England was close to primogeniture, John the Lackland never would be considered as special clause (which he was up to, well, nickname).

And under partition every title is split equally among all sons, rotating through until the each have the same number of titles. Look at those same examples? Is it even close? And which one is closer to the actual outcome? Because at no point did a King of England give a significant part of the Kingdom of England away to anyone who wasn't a primary son. They maintained pretty much the entire domain of their predecessors.

Beyond the idea about "people who are married to a person with title" (as in CK3 terms it's Robert FitzRoy, not his wife, would have a title of Gloucester, and it's Geoffrey would have title of Brittany, not his wife), it's exactly how you're supposed to play partition in CK3. You're giving your sons titles equalish to the "share" they would get otherwise, and therefore your domain stays to be granted to main heir.

But again, no. It's not. Because in CK3 if you marry off your son those lands don't count towards their inheritance. In none of these examples did their fathers partition their own personal titles among their sons. They found new titles for them, and they weren't remotely close to equal (with the exception of Richard the Lionheart).

The problem is, it's nearly impossible to create a system of inheritance which would be both realistically historical and playable (as very, very learned people in timeframe got their livings by trying to untangle the unholy mess that was called "inheritance customs of Medieval Europe in every particular clause").

I don't think it is. Seriously, making it so that any son who is landed or married to a landed ruler is excluded from partition would be closer to reality than the current system, and that would not be a difficult change to make.

To add to that, inheritance is one of the major elements of CK3. So it is worth major attention. But the current system consists of:

• A number of elective systems, these are mostly fine actually. Though I think there should be an event as the ruler died, the election shouldn't be set in stone on death.
• Confederate partition. Which just uses a very basic algorithm and is completely set in stone.
• Partition. Same, just doesn't create titles.
• High Partition. Same, just splits it 50/50 between eldest child and other heirs.
• House Seniority. Just gives all lands to the oldest member of the house.
• And finally primogeniture and ultimogeniture, which just gives it all to the eldest/youngest eligible child.

None of these are in any way interactive or interesting. And they also aren't applicable to the vast majority of realms in either start. These have also barely changed since the first release of CKII. So I don't really buy the argument that there isn't room for better succession systems, Paradox simply hasn't tried.

But, I think, it's safe to assume that it wasn't in-game primogeniture (which, I'm reminding again, is "first heir gets everything, no other person gets anything"). Partition, with king in his life ensure his sons has enough land, fits quite better.

No, primogeniture is "on ruler death first heir inherits everything". There is literally only a single case that didn't follow that rule, which is William the Bastard giving Normandy to his eldest son and England to his second surviving son on his death. Everything else was lands granted during the lifetime of the ruler. Why on earth would that be addressed through succession?

In addition to this, it sure as hell wasn't "each son gets the same number of titles, and titles by marriage don't count" either. Which is what partition is in game. The only case which was even close was William the Bastard again, but he only gave land to two of his sons, and William got far more than half the lands he held. In no other case was land given to secondary heirs on death, and in no case were secondary heirs given significant land from the direct titles held by their father.

Now there should absolutely be a mechanism in game that punishes players for not landing their sons (or daughters under equal or female succession) when they reach adulthood, at least once their realm is of a certain size, but that has nothing to do with the system of inheritance itself.

Yes, game engine force a player to do thing real life medieval rulers did quite voluntarily. I don't think it's a problem.

But this simply isn't true. They didn't voluntarily divide their realm equally among their sons. They didn't even split it half between their main heir and all their other sons. They gave the vast majority of their titles to one son and a minor title to the rest.

I'd concede the point if partition gave one title to each of the younger sons and everything else to the eldest, but that's not what happened. They controlled which son gained which lands and could exclude sons if they so desired (though this could lead to problems and rebellions). If they allowed players to set inheritance, as long as it was within certain criteria, and gave penalties the further players moved away from the ideal it would be a different situation.

But right now under partition a few generations in you end up with emperors and kings who only control a single county. That just doesn't make any sense. Now if there were some protections in place to make sure heirs at least get a certain amount of titles (for example at least X counties in the capital duchy) then maybe it would work. But right now far too often domains get whittled down to nothing.

And a huge part of the problem is that you can't grant any titles to your primary heir. Which is just absurd. Sure put a limit on how much you can grant him which is equal to what he stands to inherit (minus the capital) but don't dictate which lands you can give.

 

[aono]

And giving someone a title by marriage in CK3 doesn't count towards their inheritance.

First of all, it's impossible. There is no real "titles by marriage" in CK3.

In none of these examples did their fathers partition their own personal titles among their sons.

I'm sorry, what do you consider "Henry II personal titles" in this discussion?

But again, this once more doesn't fit partition in CK3.

Again, by CK3 rules it's Henry who was ruler of Aquitane, not Eleonore.

No, my point is that under the game rules of CK3 it isn't being landed by the father.

Under the game rules of CK3 he got a title by some event magic, and then got duchy title by his father.
Still, under the game rules (and IRL rules) it's absolutely irrelevant because he was a bastard.

And under partition every title is split equally among all sons, rotating through until the each have the same number of titles. Look at those same examples? Is it even close? And which one is closer to the actual outcome? Because at no point did a King of England give a significant part of the Kingdom of England away to anyone who wasn't a primary son.

But that's not how Partition works in CK3.
I took Bastard, cheated him victory in War for England.
It gives him 4 duchy titles (Normandy, Essex, Kent, East Anglia), and 24 counties. If it would work like you describe, it would mean that three his sons would get 24/3=8 counties each, with every duchy split. That wouldn't happen.
If you move your capital to London, the succession would be seem this way:
Robert gets Essex (and everything inside), and everything beyond other titles I would list. That would give him 17 counties.
Richard would get two duchies - Normandy and East Anglia; with four counties (and total of ten counties, including vassals).
William would get Kent and three counties within it.
Let's grant some titles, are we? First, let's create some barones. Richard gets Kent, William gets East Anglia, my brother Odo gets Normandy. Voila.

Robert (our main heir) inherit England, Essex, and 15 counties in total (well, I think they better would be given away, so I think we would stop on Essex). Nobody else gets anything else. And keep in mind, it's Confederate Partition, not High one!

But what if we'd want to have everything in England for our main heir? Simple. We conquer some Irish lands (Dublinn). No. Better. We conquer Isle of Mann. Also we destroy Duchy of Kent and Duchy of East Anglia. And then we'll give Duchy of Manx to Richard and Duchy of Normandy to William. Voila! Until we create more duchy-level titles in England, it would follow our main title.
So, essentially, the rule is following: "your non-heir sons should have the same number of the top level titles as your main one".

Let's see it now.
William the Conqueror succession. Kinda weird, because "money for land" inheritance clause, and even more weird disinheritance clause for Robert (keep in mind, it was quite weird for people around as well). One son gets England and everything inside, another son gets Normandy. Fits pattern. Doesn't fit pattern "main heir gets both everything in England and Normandy", which would be for Primogeniture. Also doesn't fit pattern "swapped order of heirs", of course).
William Rufus died without heir.
Henry I had no legitimate heir.
Stephen gave title up by faction claim (by the way, pity, impossible in CK3, should be implemented).
Henry II died in 1189. Geoffrey would be disinherited twice (as a bastard and as a member of clergy). William died in 1156. Henry died in 1183. Longespee is a bastard. So it leaves us with Richard, Geoffrey of Brittany and John. I'm not sure what would be considered "Henry's personal domain", but Richard already had Duchy of Aquitaine, Geoffrey was Duke of Brittany (just in case I'd like to remind - it's absolutely not matter HOW they get titles for CK3 mechanics), and John the Lackland was, for a moment, Lord of Ireland from 1177. So, to have historical outcome the only thing we need is that Henry wouldn't have more then one duchy-level title, to completely prevent land split - because every legitimate son he has already had duchy-level title. Looking at the state of peerage for that point (and, actually, at the idea that if you can create titles it doesn't mean you should, and even Confederate Partition creates titles only for the highest tier), I'd say it's completely valid idea. I mean, when Henry II died, even Earldom of Essex wasn't title of the king. Essentially, when/if rulers of the era created duchy-level titles, it was usually not to hoard it themselves.
Yes. Fits. Well, in CK3 under Confederate Partition that would mean splitting realm to England, Brittany and, maybe, Ireland and Aquitaine. But it's absolutely possible for England to get out from Confederate Partition to the end of 12th century. UPD: to get Innovation to swap from Confederate Partition it's enough to take Embrace English Culture decision.

Hell, I can even recreate historical inheritance of William with Confederate Partition and without giving him more innovations.

William the Red inherit England and everything inside England, Robert inherit Normandy and one county in Normandy, Henry disinherited/didn't born yet. Still Confederate Partition. Of course, it's kinda hard; you must have a lot of prestige, quite a lucky time (to get Absolute Crown Authority; it's. I believe, fourty years and I think William should get one or two levels through events), but it is possible by unmodified Confederate Partition framework. You can't do the same under Primogeniture in game.
Of course, where Confederate Partition would be quite unhistorical is Wales problem.

And a huge part of the problem is that you can't grant any titles to your primary heir.

Ehm... what?

You can't give him anything his siblings are supposed to get. That's true (and also obvious failsafe from "give everything you have to your main heir before you die, let him inherit it all"). But you totally can give him titles from the pie he's due to inherit.

P.S. Also, just to clarify. I'm not saying that making better succession is impossible. I'm just saying that creating a playable system of absolutely realistic medieval succession is kinda impossible, it always would be some kind of abstraction and standardization. By definition, any kind of succession system in game would follow some list of strict rules, and IRL it just wasn't the case.

 

[Tatterhood]

Also doesn't fit pattern "swapped order of heirs", of course

TBH heir designation should really be easier to get under partition than it is. This kind of thing was common enough before primogeniture became the norm.

As for William, I think he's a great example of exactly what the devs were going for with partition. As far as I know, "succession laws" in the early middle ages were much less rigid than they are in game (and eventually became irl) and so neither primogeniture nor partition nor anything else is a perfect fit, but partitions were quite common even if they weren't "mandatory". The problem with representing things like this accurately is that in real life William the Conqueror did not (as far as we know) transfer his consciousness into his son's body after death, and so his concerns were very different from ours as players.

Even in the Muslim world, realms did sometimes get split up and power struggles between brothers were common. Something better could probably be done than just giving them partition, but CK2's Open succession effectively meant that Muslims were completely free from succession-related difficulties, which is utter nonsense.

(In the Muslim world, and to some extent in Europe too, a big part of the issue is that the game is bad at simulating unlanded characters with signinficant political power. Ambitious younger brothers being a thorn in the monarch's side is historically accurate no matter what part of the world you're talking about, but without dramatic changes to the game there just isn't a good way to have that be true without giving them any land.)

 

[aono]

Historically, "succession laws" in the early middle ages were much less rigid than they are in game (and eventually became irl) and so neither primogeniture nor partition nor anything else is a perfect fit, but partitions were quite common even if they weren't "mandatory".

Yes, that's my point.

he problem with representing things like this accurately is that in real life William the Conqueror did not (as far as we know) transfer his consciousness into his son's body after death, and so his concerns were very different from ours as players.

Another problem, as I pointed, is that game, which is coded, and supposed to be playable (therefore operable by player), necessary has solid rules.

Something better could probably be done than just giving them partition, but CK2's Open succession effectively meant that Muslims were completely free from difficulties, which is utter nonsense.

I actually believes the most correct idea would be giving them election government with candidates being selectable from Dynasty + claimants (I don't know a lot about Muslim succession, but I think it wouldn't be such a stretch), with every dynast and every landed vassal having a voice, with heavy emphasis on prestige for voting, and with five first persons in succession chain gaining claims.

Ambitious younger brothers being a thorn in the monarch's side is historically accurate no matter what part of the world you're talking about, but without dramatic changes to the game there just isn't a good way to have that be true without giving them any land.

I would be elated to see less focus on lands and more focus on courts.

P.S.

As for William, I think he's a great example of exactly what the devs were going for with partition.

And yes, that's where I came to this thread.

 

[Tatterhood]

Yes, that's my point.

I probably should have made it clearer that only the first bit of my post was directly meant as a response to you! But yes, I think we're in agreement on most of this.

 

[filcat]

(Disclaimer: Among other raging discussions on the other sides of the game in the forum, the author feels to interrupt, and involve in the discourse in this thread. It will not be brief, and mostly irrelevant, with little to no consequences, or any improvement to the topic. The author was looking for some information on other problems in the forums, but was wound up in this topic. Apologies for the interruption, and the terribly sorry for the horrifically long comments)

For example, maybe you need to make sure to land all your sons (or at least your oldest X sons) before the mechanic kicks in.

Out of all the comments that @Stgerlachus has made, this part actually deserves a notable credit for further consideration.

That also isn't exactly true. Henry wasn't left out. He was given money with direct intention to allow him to buy lands (which he did), and he was supposed to get his mother's estate.
Still, my point was that idea of William using partition makes no sense is ridiculous. He was using partition historically. More then that, if you check you'll notice that his successors also had a habit to land their children (directly or through marriage), and whatever their succession habit was, it definitely wasn't CK3 primogeniture.

Henry had only one legitimate son (who died in 17), but he landed his bastards quite generously. Kingdom of England gone to his nephew (Stephen was a fourth son of Adele, daughter of William the Conqueror).
Stephen had three sons, and two of them bounced their mother title. Royal title gone to Henry II, who was, again, nephew through Empress Matilda, who was daughter (legitimate) of Henry I.
Henry II had 5 legitimate sons. William died 2. So, we had Henry, who was king of England (by design; he never ruled, which really, really was pissing him; died heirless); Richard Lionheart, who was Duke of Aquitane; Geoffrey, who was made a Duke of Brittany; John, who was specifically named "Lackland", as he was supposed to get only lands in Savoy by marriage, so he was granted only three castles (which pissed Henry out). His younger bastard also got lands - Earldom of Salisbury, and older bastard (and older son) was made Bishop of Lincoln (without actual being a priest; yes, it started to became even more complicated from here). His successor was Henry first, who dies; Richard then, who died heirless; John then.
John had two legitimate sons. Elder, Henry, became king (of England and Ireland, and also Duke of Aquitane), when lesser became an Earl of Cornwall.
Henry had, again, two sons, Edward and Edmund. Edward became a king, and Edmund was supposed to get Sicily, and until then he was Earl of Leicester and Lancaster.

...I'll allow myself not to continue list (I didn't end it on the king who break such a tradition, if you wonder, check Edward I, Edward II and Edward III yourself), but I think it's obvious - kings of England wasn't follow the idea of "elder son inherit everything his father had"; quite the opposite, they believed in idea that son of a king is entitled to some titles.

A compilation that is very interesting to read; the author would like to express gratitude to @aono for the time, and labour to write it. Out of that reply, this part made the final note to force the author to write:

quite the opposite, they believed in idea that son of a king is entitled to some titles.

The key part is "they believed". Who, is the actual question. The author agrees with this part.

I'd say, we're locked in some form of partition until quite late game - exactly because a system where one son just get everything at all, and others are, well, screwed, is virtually non-existent in history (and, actually, primogeniture as it is in game is a bone for players).

@aono makes an excellent point here, with the situation of the game and its partition ruling, but the author disagrees with proposed suggestions. That point is the fundamental problem of the game, which is the "primogeniture" being locked behind an innovation, and can be changed among other types of "laws". It is true that such a succession type was unheard; the problematic part is that succession laws are given as innovations, but they should not be innovations, or 'techs' to unlock. Successions were not following any laws, neither written (hah!) nor traditional, but they happened according to the dictation of the most powerful faction, with their claims based on any laws, either written (again, hah!) or traditional. To further explain the problem:

That's my point, actually. I'm not vell-versed in French or German title inheritance history, but kingdom of England after Bastard conquer is awful historical example of CK3 primogeniture.

The author also, as @aono, does not know the history of the lands of the franks, nor of the tedesco to be confident enough to make any comments, but the author is able to give examples from other (!) lands.

- (An example from the lands far away) As the great khan had many sons, all of them were already controlling large parts of the mongol empire. Temujin had Ögedei as the only successor in his mind, as opposed to the youngest, Tolui. So Tolui inherited the motherland mongolia, as the nobles expected so. When the kurultai (this is very hard actually to write everything in its anglicised version, anyways) was called, Tolui supported Ögedei, therefore Ögedei became the second khagan, emperor of all mongols.

- But mongols had far more succession problems than that. Temujin's other son, Jochi, was actually his first-born, and was the natural heir. But Chagatai, Temujin's second son, was not fond of Jochi, and even went to accuse his legitimacy at a kurultai. Therefore Temujin chose Ögedei, the third son, so the animosity between Chagatai and Jochi would not break the empire.

- (No, it did not end) Jochi was given the west khanate of the empire, and did not continue the conquests with his father and his siblings. Jochi died before his father, and his lands were inherited (given by Temujin) by his sons, forming White Horde and Blue Horde. The older son Orda's White Horde fought in the west, but the second son initially went with Khagan Ögedei for northern china expansion. After northern china wars, the second son Batu was appointed to conquer the petty khanate that was called europa. That was none-other than Batu Khan, the destroyer of the kievan rus. Orda agreed, and the hordes united as The Golden Horde.

- (hang on, it got better) When Ögedei died, his widow assumed herself as Khatun Regent, and supported her son from Ögedei as the third khagan, Güyük. (Of course) Batu did not approve this, as there was not any good relationship between Batu, son of Jochi, and Güyük, son of Ögedei. Batu remained as the khan of west. After some diplomatic skirmishes (exactly diplomatic, appointing a vassal king for Georgia, but then refusing and appointing another as a vassal for Armenia, that sort of stuff), Batu was summoned to swear fealty, probably to be arrested (not exactly known). Güyük also gathered his army, started to march towards west. Then, Güyük died before reaching his target, whoever that might be.

- (correct, not finished) Remember the youngest son of Temujin, Tolui? Well, when Temujin died, his sons inherited each 4000 mongol troops, but the youngest Tolui got 100000 (a hundred thousand; compare this to ck3, or ck2), according to the traditions. So the line of Tolui had already the largest army within the realm. Any ways, Güyük Khagan died, and Möngke, the son of Tolui, met with his cousin, Batu, of the golden horde. Batu supported Möngke, and it took multiple kurultais (and many averted assassination attempts) to elect him as the fourth khagan of the mongol empire. After the succession, Möngke <the author checking notes> purged all the pretenders from Chagatai and Ögedei lines. Then, he gave the west asia to his brother, Hulegu, and the east asia to another brother, Kublai.

- (no, not even close) Kublai of the east actually started to get his own taxes instead of sending them to karakorum, so tensions were tight, but Kublai and Möngke mended the hostilities (relatively in peaceful terms). Then came further conquests (of korea, dali, vietnam, iraq, syria, anatolia, etc.); of these conquests, Hulegu, the founder of the ilkhanids, made a significant impact on iraq, particularly on baghdad (hulegu gonna hulegu). Any ways, and then, the unknown happened, Möngke died.

- (oh no, it continued) So however happened, after the death of Möngke, his youngest brother, Ariq Böke, proclaimed himself as the khagan in karakorum. His older brother, Kublai in north china, of course, opposed to this succession, with the support of his han chinese and manchu-jurchen subjects. Another kurultai proclaimed Kublai as the khagan, and eventually, civil war erupted. This time it came with the destruction of karakorum, revolts in china, murdering the appointed khans of chagatai lands. Alghu Khan of chagatai, and Hulegu Khan of ilkhan sided with Kublai, then Ariq Böke admitted his defeat. Kublai was proclaimed as the fifth khagan. However, internal conflicts in the mongol empire did not end.

- (pheww, not yet) Kaidu, grandson of Ögedei, already waged war against Baraq, great-grandson of Chagatai. After the peace, they partitioned the chagatai lands. Baraq attacked the Abaqa of the ilkhanids, but was defeated, and died. Kaidu proclaimed as the khan of chagatai lands, and invaded mongolia. This war, and the rivalry between Kaidu and Kublai, did not end until the death of Kaidu.

- (and finally) Kublai, before, during, and after all these events, founded the yuan dynasty, with its capital as khanbaliq (hello beijing; well, it was zhongdu, before temujin destroyed the city completely). His first-born died; his second-born died. Depressed, gout-ridden, full of alcohol, appointed his grandson Temür (not to be confused with timur) as the single heir. Temür Öljeitu proclaimed as the sixth khagan of the mongol empire, and the second yuan emperor. But at that point, Kaidu was still raging in his war against the yuan Kublai, and did continue against the yuan Temür. The empire was already disintegrated. Abaqa, and his grandson Ghazan of the ilkhanids were loyal to yuan, but the chagataids, and the golden horde declared autonomy (not exactly; in simple terms, they did not recognise the yuan supremacy).

- (Also another example from the late-middle of the game's timeline, to out of its scope) As their rivals, the habsburgs, were marrying into each other, the osmanoglu dynasty had... err... a far different approach for keeping the dynasty and the land intact. The entire early history of osman's line consists of <the author checking notes> eliminating the other eligible heirs under obvious circumstances (so smooth, filcat, so smooth). This is, in game's terms, forcing a single heir policy, but not particularly primo-, nor ultimogeniture. The heir was designated by the padishah, considering all the elements, power of sipahis, beys, sheikhs, pashas, etc. But if a prince gathered popularity, got own followers, and seemed to topple the ruler, then it would be time for disinheriting... under obvious circumstances.

Yes, none of these situations are applicable to any of the succession types that are in ck3, nor in ck2. Not only that, the types in the game have zero relation to what happened outside europe (the author regretfully assumes that these succession laws in some ways reflect the feudal aristocracy in medieval europe, without much learning); when a family member got land, title, whatever, they were not considered vassals. But, this is irrelevant. The problem is this: Succession is not a technological, civic, cultural, or social advancement. It had always been as the case of whoever had the most power to proclaim its own supremacy over the others. Not even the roman empire had such power as primogeniture. Certainly neither alexander; the diadochi did not say "well the hellas culture is in confederate partition era, so let ptolemy get this... egypt, is it? ok". But they did partition the remains of the empire according to their power base.

This situation is worth for further development, as a simulation of dynamic power struggle can be expected from the game, but this is only a wish. The author also shamefully admits defeat that the examples given above cannot be fully simulated in the game. On the other hand, hoping, wishing, expecting, trying to change the current situation in ck3 back to ck2 will not advance the game.

 

[aono]

The key part is "they believed". Who, is the actual question. The author agrees with this part.

Kings of England. Actually, I believe, it can be extended to any kind of medieval European rulers.

The heir was designated by the padishah, considering all the elements, power of sipahis, beys, sheikhs, pashas, etc.

Not exactly. Heir wasn't "designated" per se. Heirs were supposed to literally fight each other with military power they created in provincial governorships, and my boy, fights they had. Essentially, every time Osmans changed ruler, they got civil war. Winner got everything, losers who survived were (traditionally) strangled.
Later this beautiful policy waned, though.

Not only that, the types in the game have zero relation to what happened outside europe (the author regretfully assumes that these succession laws in some ways reflect the feudal aristocracy in medieval europe, without much learning); when a family member got land, title, whatever, they were not considered vassals.

They did in China or in Japan. At least, clan members of Han dynasty was indeed considered vassals of Huangdi after taking title. Same for Japanese imperial clans - Minamoto were part of the family, for example, but were, for sure, considered as vassals of Chrysanthemum Throne (theoretically; practice could be very, very different).

 

[filcat]

Not exactly. Heir wasn't "designated" per se. Heirs were supposed to literally fight each other with military power they created in provincial governorships, and my boy, fights they had. Essentially, every time Osmans changed ruler, they got civil war. Winner got everything, losers who survived were (traditionally) strangled.
Later this beautiful policy waned, though.

Although the author has to admit that designation of heir was a blanket exaggeration for succession, it has to be reiterated as there were a favourite, an unfavourable, an obvious, an ambiguous, a least likeable, a most supported, etc. heir through almost each succession. But notable different examples include:

- After the death of bayezid the first (the lightning) in exile (he was defeated, or actually, destroyed by timur, of the timurids), the osmans went into interregnum, with intensive regicide on battlefields. Many sons, and as there were no laws, and as the tradition meant that all sons were eligible, at this part @aono is right, there was no designation.

- Fun side-note: the son süleyman proclaimed rule in edirne (adrianopolis); the son mehmed in amasya (amasea); the son isa in bursa (prusa, nicaea, south of constantinopole). Mehmed and isa fought, and mehmed won. Isa fled to karaman, and died (probably killed by mehmed). After this, süleyman came with a larger army. Meanwhile in timurids, another son musa (captured along with father bayezid the first) was released and sent to germiyanids. Mehmed requested his brother musa's return, and then together they fought against süleyman, and won. Musa, bitter about the alliance between süleyman and manuel the second of palaiologos, sieged constantinopole. Fun part begins: manuel the second called for help from mehmed. Mehmed came to help the roman emperor, and thwarted his brother musa. The two then met on the battlefield, which was concluded by the victory of mehmed. After... err... strangling his brother musa, mehmed proclaimed mehmed the first.

- Mehmed the first was succeeded by murad the second, with a spectacular succession. Before even begin to reign, murad the second had problems with his brothers, with one interesting case of mustafa, who was supported by basileus manuel the second of palaiologos. Mustafa had larger army, and defeated murad, but later murad was able to run around, and gathered more, including the defectors from mustafa. Then of course, murad defeated mustafa, and executed him.

- The comical part begins: Murad the second fought the romans, sieged constantinople. Manuel the second's response was... <the author checking notes> sending another brother-prince mustafa to rebel against murad the second; this younger mustafa was 13 years old, and still, was executed after the defeat against murad.

- Murad the second, tired of fighting against brothers, venetians, karamans, serbs, germiyanids, and of defeating Hunyadi along with crusaders in 1444 (the author tremors with the painful memories of eu4) etc., abdicated the throne, an unseen move until that time. His young son, mehmed, was 12 years old, and was the designated heir.

- Mehmed initially fought and thwarted Hunyadi (12 years old, pheww), but then overwhelmed with balkan crusaders breaking truce for varna against the ottomans (the author does not approve this latinisation - anglicisation, but still admits the weird charm of preferring the comical abbreviation of 'otto'). So mehmed first called, then ordered his father, murad the second, to take the reign back. Murad the second came, saw, won.

- Mehmed then took the reign again after the death of his father. Then he became mehmed the conqueror... <the author checking notes> by conquering the romans' constantinople (ottos gonna otto). After that, there was designation of heirs by... strangling other candidates, and this was legitimised by law; at that part, the author partly agrees with @aono. But he was able to legitimise this by law, as he had the power and the support to do so (after proclaiming himself as kayser-i rum, the emperor of romans), not because the turkic culture at that point magically innovated primogeniture by strangling, nor by selecting such laws from an available list of different laws.

(Many apologies for still continuing the already far-stretched discussion; the author is not able to refrain, it is still very interesting. Again, many apologies for taking anyone's time)

 

[Katsue]

Henry I had no legitimate heir.

Henry I did have an heir - Matilda, who was deposed in a civil war. Stephen of Blois is very nearly the purest example of a King being made by a faction out there. He wasn't even the oldest son of his parents.

 

[Leoreth]

I'd be fine with partition being as common as it is if instead of determining how the realm was split it changed the opinion of your heirs and vassals to the point there might be a revolt, either during your reign or after you die if you split it in a manner that is too uneven. And here too it's relevant to remember that Louis the Pious gave the vast majority of his lands to his eldest son, and smaller kingdoms to his other sons, it was only revolts and civil wars that led to West and East Francia.

I think it would be a lot cooler overall if the player character had full control over how to split their inheritance, instead of it being executed by the game upon death.

But that requires a robust system where brothers of the new ruler would immediately assert their claim on the title on succession. Vassals should be willing to support a faction to either facilitate a split of the disputed titles or installing a brother to the throne, depending on succession laws, especially if those brothers were earlier in the line of succession. With partition, it should be in the interest of all low level vassals to support a split of the top level titles into separate realms, regardless of which liege they would end up under.

It absolutely does. My point is that it's weird that it's static. Historically disinheriting was used, but mainly for clearly incompetent heirs or heirs who revolted. I would love if that would be implemented in CK3. So that it's much easier to disinherit useless heirs. And maybe the cost should increase the more you use it, so it's very easy to disinherit one heir, but quite expensive to disinherit 6.

Personally, I would prefer requiring at least some good reason for disinheriting (I have established that as a personal rule for myself so I don't exploit the mechanic). Unlike others, I don't find the cost prohibitively high, rather it feels too low to prevent abuse. I am not always looking to put the best of my six sons on the throne though, and am only sometimes tempted to remove a particularly bad older son.

This requires a good solution to the Mercia Problem, of course.

(The Mercia Problem: On the one hand, the King of all England should want to keep his capital in Middlesex or Hampshire rather than moving it to Leicester. On the other hand, the Petty Kingdom of Mercia needs to be a unit.)

I would say a soundly designed system is more important than one particular edge case, but considering how much ink has been spilled in this thread many other people feel differently.

Oh well. As long as the game is working for England I guess.

 

[grommile]

I would say a soundly designed system is more important than one particular edge case, but considering how much ink has been spilled in this thread many other people feel differently.

One of the multiple conflicting soundness criteria for systems in CK is "how well does the system encourage historical behaviours and outcomes?" and the whole reason we have this thread is that CK3 (like CK2 but in different ways) is falling short on that criterion.

Mercia is a convenient example for me to use because I've been playing campaigns that start in these islands so I'm familiar with the issues that apply to these islands, so I call it the Mercia Problem.

 

[Leoreth]

Is Mercia a representative example for similar cases elsewhere in the world?

 

[Stgerlachus]

I think it would be a lot cooler overall if the player character had full control over how to split their inheritance, instead of it being executed by the game upon death.

But that requires a robust system where brothers of the new ruler would immediately assert their claim on the title on succession. Vassals should be willing to support a faction to either facilitate a split of the disputed titles or installing a brother to the throne, depending on succession laws, especially if those brothers were earlier in the line of succession. With partition, it should be in the interest of all low level vassals to support a split of the top level titles into separate realms, regardless of which liege they would end up under.

I completely agree with you here. That's probably the feature I would most want to be implemented in the future. Partition as it exists in the game didn't really exist historically. Generally speaking one of two things happened, either the ruler simply decided how the lands would be split, or the heirs would decide for themselves (and sometimes both). However that didn't mean traditions didn't exist, and breaking from those traditions would make revolts more likely.

For example, under Confederate partition each of your sons would expect an equal share of land, similar to what is currently the case. But rather than forcing this on the player, they can decide how to split their realm. But the further away from equal succession the more likely there will be revolts from the siblings of the primary heir. Moving to normal or high partition wouldn't change the limitations placed on the player, but it would change how angry secondary heirs would get if left little (or no) land.

An added bonus to this system is that it could also apply while the rulers were still alive. In a lot of instances it was expected that sons would get titles when they came of age. But right now there is in impetus to do this (other than to give them some land you just conquered/revoked to avoid a split on ruler death). If children can agitate for changes and land suddenly players would have to start looking for land to hand out to their heirs.

Of course this is not without problems. There needs to be a solution for the AI (I think they would follow the tradition, with changes being determined by the opinion of heirs, their ability and their traits) and it probably requires event troops to make secondary heirs a true threat. And there should probably be an option to switch to a sibling if you lose a civil war (maybe at the cost of blocking certain achievements to prevent cheese). But it would make inheritance actually interesting, rather than something that more than half of all players seem to be trying to actively circumvent.

Personally, I would prefer requiring at least some good reason for disinheriting (I have established that as a personal rule for myself so I don't exploit the mechanic). Unlike others, I don't find the cost prohibitively high, rather it feels too low to prevent abuse. I am not always looking to put the best of my six sons on the throne though, and am only sometimes tempted to remove a particularly bad older son.

I can see where you're coming from. Though I don't think there should ever be a hard block, generally speaking rulers could disinherit for whatever reason they wanted. I also don't like the fact it's hidden behind being dynasty head, there is far too much power there. However, at the same time if there's no reason the penalties should be far higher, it should be more expensive, cost tyranny and anger vassals, maybe it should even cost gold (to essentially buy off heirs) on top of that.

I also feel that having a lot of sons should be a reason to disinherit a few of them. I very much doubt any historical ruler would have split their realm over 9 sons, but with polygamy or concubines this can happen (which is a reason why partition is particularly problematic for Muslim rulers). And of course in a more dynamic system sons might revolt against your plans for inheritance, and that too would give you a reason to disinherit them, if you can fend off their challenge at least.