Philosophy of Kingdoms

[unmerged(31117)]

So according to the Pope there were no Roman Emporers before Constantine's conversion to Christianity.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

So according to the Pope there were no Roman Emporers before Constantine's conversion to Christianity.

I think the pre-christian pagan emperors do count, as they count in Bible too.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Erm, are we talking about (CK terms) the province, or the claimable kingdom?

I am talking about claimable kingdom that is called Tunis in the game....it's too big to be 'Kingdom of Tunis' and covers much larger area then it should as 'Kingdom of Tunis'. I would rather have this as kingdom of Tripolitania as this old Roman name for the province at some point.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

I am talking about claimable kingdom that is called Tunis in the game....it's too big to be 'Kingdom of Tunis' and covers much larger area then it should as 'Kingdom of Tunis'. I would rather have this as kingdom of Tripolitania as this old Roman name for the province at some point.

What about renaming the Kingdom of Africa to the Kingdom of Maghreb so we can call the current Kingdom of Tunisia the Kingdom of Africa (after the Roman province). I don't really think that Cyrenaica should really be part of Tunisia anyway, after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, Cyrenaica (Libya Superior) became part of the Eastern Roman empire's Oriens.

Also, should we have a Duchy/Principality of Kairwan? It was a city, not a whole region, of course an important and a rich on at that, albeit, one in decline. What about Byzacena? And Leptis Magna is terribly archaic, if we're going to Roman names at least use something AD, I'd call it Tripolitania.

 

[unmerged(2952)]

Perhaps the Kingdom of Tunis could be Carthage? From a European standpoint, that would have been the name of the region, and what they would have called it if they could capture the entirety of the land.

 

[unmerged(17614)]

There were claimants, not emperors. The line in Nicaea only became Emperors of Byzantium after they re-took the city. The Trabzond line were splitters who rebelled before 1204, and would most likely have been taken care of had not the Latin Empire "happened".

But how do you distinguish between 'claimants' and 'genuine' Emperors? Weren't the emperors in Niceae 'officially' crowned and all that? Why do you only consider them emperors once they captured Constantinople?

I'm interested in the Trabzond line. You say they 'rebelled' before 1204. Do you know the year and circumstances? I'm curious whether they styled themselves emperors from the beginning, or whether they didn't until post 1204. With the church being linked closely to the throne, do you know whether Trabzond had its own Patriarch or at least it's own branch of the church?

Yup, they did actually. When Osman took the throne he sent out a decree declaring himself the Eastern Roman Emperor as well, if I remember correctly. The Pope at the time pointed out that if this was the case, he would have to convert to Christianity as well. Also, if you look at areas of Ottoman Expansion, they did seem to focus on regions which were held by the Byzantine Emperors.

Wait, you mean Osman, so that's before they conquered Constantople? Lol at the pope. :rofl: Do you know how long they maintained that claim? Did they style themselves 'Emperor of Rome' all the while up to 1920?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Trebizond, empire of, 1204–1461. When the army of the Fourth Crusade overthrew (1204) the Byzantine Empire and established the Latin Empire of Constantinople, several Greek successor states sprang up. These were the empire of Nicaea, the despotate of Epirus, and the empire of Trebizond. The last of these was founded by two members of the former imperial Comnenus family, David and his brother Alexius I (reigned 1204–22) of Trebizond, who took the titles of Grand Comnenus and emperor, which were assumed by all his successors. The empire comprised the entire southern coastal region of the Black Sea except its westernmost section, which belonged to Nicaea. Trebizond, the capital, and Sinope were the chief cities. The western part of the empire was the conquest of David Comnenus, who soon lost his dominions to Nicaea. The empire of Trebizond was further diminished when Sinope fell (1214) to the Seljuk Turks, and the emperor became a vassal of the sultan of Iconium; for the remainder of its existence Trebizond was restricted to the SE Black Sea coastal region. When the Byzantine Empire was restored (1261) under Nicaean leadership, Trebizond remained separate and independent, although it was often forced to pay tribute to the succeeding dominant powers of Asia Minor. After the Mongol invasion the empire experienced tremendous economic prosperity. It became the commercial route through Asia Minor, leading into the great trade route to East Asia that the Mongols had opened, and its position on the trade routes from Russia and from the Middle East to Europe furthered its importance. Its commercial life was controlled by the Genoese and the Venetians, and the empire profited much from the added opportunity to export the produce of its own rich hinterland. The empire reached its greatest prosperity under Alexius II (1297–1330), but with the decline of Mongol power after 1320, Trebizond suffered increasingly from Turkish attacks, civil wars, and domestic intrigues. In this period the emperors attempted to gain strength by marrying the princesses of the Comnenus dynasty to Turkish princes. Relations between Trebizond and the Muslims were generally friendly, but after the Turkish conquest of Constantinople (1453), David Comnenus, the last emperor of Trebizond, promoted an alliance of the non-Ottoman Asian states against Sultan Muhammad II. In 1461, Muhammad forced David to surrender, and a few years later the sultan had him put to death together with all the Comnenus males but one. Trebizond was annexed to the Ottoman Empire. At the height of its wealth and power the court of the Grand Comneni was a great artistic and cultural center and made Trebizond the last refuge of Hellenistic civilization.

1204 it is

 

[Havard]

But how do you distinguish between 'claimants' and 'genuine' Emperors? Weren't the emperors in Niceae 'officially' crowned and all that? Why do you only consider them emperors once they captured Constantinople?

In their own eyes they were all genuine. If the Emperor in Thessaloniki or the Despot of Epirus had won the struggle and captured Constaninople they would be know to history as the "real" one

I'm interested in the Trabzond line. You say they 'rebelled' before 1204. Do you know the year and circumstances? I'm curious whether they styled themselves emperors from the beginning, or whether they didn't until post 1204. With the church being linked closely to the throne, do you know whether Trabzond had its own Patriarch or at least it's own branch of the church?

Well, they didn't rebel before 1204 the year, but before 1204 the Fall of Constantinople.

Alexius Comnenus, grandson of Emperor Andronicus I, was also grandson of the Georgian king David the Builder and the rebel state in Trabizon was founded under protection of Queen Tamar. If my memory doesn't fail me they rebelled against the Angelos emperors in Constantinople before it fell to the Latins.

And yes, they did style themself Emperor from the start of.

 

[Havard]

Um...we already have an 18+ page kingdom thread on the go, so please do not turn this thread into yet another re-hash of possible kingdoms and/or kingdom boundaries. A discussion of mechanism for creating/claiming/losing/etc a kingdom is fine, but let's keep focussed on that aspect of things -- the mechanisms -- please, and not the specifics.

As per the FAQ thread in this forum, any discussion of kingdoms, boundaries, etc. should happen in the S&M forum, although to a limited degree I'll allow it in the existing "kingdom petition" thread.

Thank you.

It seems many have forgotten MrT's warning just two days ago. Don't turn this into another boundary/name rehash thread, or I'll close it

 

[Enravota]

In their own eyes they were all genuine. If the Emperor in Thessaloniki or the Despot of Epirus had won the struggle and captured Constaninople they would be know to history as the "real" one

the deaspot of Epeiros and the emperor of Thessaloniki is the same person - Theodoros Komnenos.

and acctually neither of the succesor states claimed to be emperors of Rome but rather governors of the empire-in-reffuge. the claiming of emperor title from the Epeiros states was laughed at badly in Nikea. The Byzantine state lost New Rome so wasn't really THE Roman empire, but the empire reffuged by god to be humbled i'm not sure that anyone other than theodoros claimed to be emperor (not of Thessaloniki, but of Rome ) before taking Constantinopole back (xept Trebizond, but it was a splinter state like Cicilia, not a succesor state like Nikea and Epeiros).

 

[Enravota]

is it possible to add an event or somthing, t ohave splinter kingdoms. like givin' a secondary title to a younger son or brother etc?

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Yeah, but I don't think most players would like it (as it would mean changing law to Gavelkind and immidiately killing off the current king) and making it only target multi-kings would require awfully complicated trigger, not to mention checking that the king has more than just one heir...

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Something still needs to be done to breakup those kingdoms. It could be done so that it happens when the kings likely to die anyway. Or we could have another hardcoded event to trigger and breakup multi-kingdoms like that upon ruler death.