The new mechanics for theocracies that have been added in Common Sense are very nifty and (finally) give playing them some interesting flavour.
Nevertheless, I think it would be nice if the game were to represent some of the more intricate political machinations around prince bishoprics in the Holy Roman Empire. Also (and I say this knowing that the game is not supposed to be a perfectly accurate historical simulator) some important processes regarding these bishoprics right now are not represented in any way. Without further ado, my suggestions:
Nevertheless, I think it would be nice if the game were to represent some of the more intricate political machinations around prince bishoprics in the Holy Roman Empire. Also (and I say this knowing that the game is not supposed to be a perfectly accurate historical simulator) some important processes regarding these bishoprics right now are not represented in any way. Without further ado, my suggestions:
- It should be possible for bishoprics to enter into a personal union. This happened a lot historically, and it would greatly enhance a bishopric’s diplomatic options. For example, Ferdinand of Bavaria was at the same time Archbishop-Elector of Cologne and Prince Bishop of Lüttich, Hildesheim, Münster and Paderborn. Johann Philipp Schönborn was Archbishop-Elector of Mainz and Prince Bishop of Würzburg and Worms, Albrecht Kardinal von Brandenburg was Archbishop of Magdeburg AND Mainz.
Of course, within the current system where a bishopric gets to choose its ruler, they would never reasonably choose being junior partner in a personal union. I believe that the current (great!) system for choosing the heir to the bishopric could be enhanced to include this and work somewhat similarly to elective monarchy, as follows:
Bishoprics can still choose their preferred local heir, as introduced in CS. Only the option “a foreign noble” would be removed (more on what would replace that later).
There is a new special diplomatic action for bishoprics to have their bishop stand for another bishopric which works similarly to “support heir” for Elective Monarchy. As in elective monarchy, any month the diplomat is present there is a certain chance, affected by opinion and diplomatic reputation to increase support for a candidate.
The bishopric, similarly to the elective monarchy, can spend devotion, papal influence and money to increase the chance of its local heir getting elected (and not being forced into a personal union!). There might also be a possibility for the other bishopric trying to get its bishop elected to spend money, devotion and/or papal influence to increase support. - It should be possible, albeit very hard to integrate these personal unions. I don’t know any case where a personal union of prince bishoprics became permanent, since at a bishop’s death each cathedral chapter was free to choose the successor. Several bishops attempted to unify the bishoprics they held, though. For example, Dietrich von Moers, Archbishop of Cologne and administrator of the prince bishopric of Paderborn tried to formally merge Paderborn with Cologne, got papal consent for that in 1429 from Martinus V but eventually failed when in 1431 the cathedral chapter convinced Pope Eugenius IV to reinstate Paderborn. It is therefore not implausible to allow integrating personal unions of bishoprics, and would probably be good for gameplay. In addition to the usual requirements for integration, it should require excellent relations with the pope, and it should probably come with a penalty to devotion.
- since canonic law actually (sorta) forbids the cumulation of offices, personal unions should come at a certain penalty to devotion
- The Council of Trent made a specific point of enforcing this prohibition, since especially the aforementioned Albrecht Kardinal von Brandenburg’s holding two archbishoprics, and using it less for any pious purpose than for personal gain and political ambition was one quite important contributing factor to the immense popularity of the Reformation in Germany. Therefore, the event that activates the Counterreformation should
1. increase the penalty to devotion for personal unions
2. add a relation penalty with the Pope and possibly other counterreformed countries
3. make it somewhat harder/more expensive for other bishoprics to support their bishop
Nonetheless, the counterreformation should not make personal unions impossible – Franz von Schönborn of Mainz and Würzburg and Ferdinand of Bavaria of Cologne, Liege, Münster and Paderborn are prominent examples that accumulation of bishoprics was still very much possible in the 17th century. - a different, and very important political element of prince bishoprics in the HRE that currently isn’t represented is how the secular states of Germany often controlled them by getting a relative elected. The most successful at this were the Bavarian Wittelsbachs, who throughout the 17th and 18th century had made both Liege and Cologne effective secundogenitures, but this was something that happened all the time. There was a Hohenzollern bishop of Magdeburg and Mainz, Welf bishops of Osnabrück, Archbishops of Cologne from Jülich, Limburg and Berg etc.
Particularly for the Wittelsbachs, but also for other dynasty, this was a really essential part of their dynastic and expansionistic strategy.
One might argue that domination of a bishopric by a secular dynasty could be abstracted as diplomatic vassalization of that bishopric. While this is in principle possible, it is quite certainly impossible for the most important historical case, the Bavarian bishops of Cologne, due to the “is an elector” modifier.
Preferably, the element of dynastic heirs to bishoprics could be integrated in the enhanced election system proposed above – secular HRE countries would simply also get a diplomatic action to support an heir of their dynasty.
If they succeed, effects are similar to having a heir of your dynasty elected to the Polish throne. In addition to that, each year of consecutively having installed a bishop of your dynasty would increase the chance of accepting diplomatic vassalization by 1/ 2 / a certain factor. This factor could eventually counteract the HRE country and even the is an elector modifier and allow for something like the historical de-facto vassalization of Cologne by Bavaria. - the aforementioned system would create a pretty organic way to represent the secularization of a bishopric by a dynasty that controlled it (like Brandenburg did with Magdeburg) and in general present another realistic and interesting road for diplomatic expansion within the HRE.
- dynastic control and personal unions would not be mutually exclusive: a Cologne that has, say, a Wittelsbach bishop can try to get that bishop elected to the bishopric of Münster and thereby spread the Wittelsbach dynasty.
- a bishopric that is the vassal of a secular country should either automatically choose a heir of that dynasty or at least have dramatically increased chance of doing so
- protestant, reformed or even orthodox countries should not necessarily be restricted from supporting a heir of their dynasty. There even is the historical precedent of the protestant Welfs installing Welf bishops in Osnabrück throughout the 17th and the 18th century. The relationship penalty and the inability to use papal influence should be enough to make it pretty hard.
- another idea: since Bavaria’s national ideas are still, even after being buffed, quite underwhelming, and since they were the undisputed masters of dynastic expansion by controlling bishoprics, it might be a nice touch if Bavaria could get a national idea that specifically gives them an edge here
- on a somewhat related thought, I am aware of the performance issues associated with adding new tags, but there should be several more independent bishoprics in the HRE, namely the bishoprics of Osnabrück, Paderborn and Bamberg and possibly Ermland and Cambrai. Osnabrück, Paderborn and Bamberg were sometimes united with the bishoprics they are currently a part of in EU4 (Münster, Cologne and Würzburg, respectively), however most of the time, they were not. They were, simply put, separate bishoprics ruled by their own bishop chosen by their own cathedral chapter and pursuing separate policies. This also means that the balance between the bishoprics among themselves and in comparison to the surrounding countries is quite off. Würzburg was not wealthier or more important the Archbishopric of Mainz; Cologne was not more powerful than Trier or Kleve-Mark.
Also, the game of personal unions between the bishoprics would be more interesting if there were more of them.
The case of Cambrai and Ermland is not that clear-cut. Both were independent political entities, but also to a certain extent integrated into the political structure of Burgundy and the Teutonic Order. On the other hand, there isn’t really much justification to make Riga independent and Ermland part of the TO – both cases should be treated the same way.
Last edited:
- 5
Upvote
0
