Varyar said:Which in itself is a remarkable feature. I can't wait until I may lead Count Nobody of Shithole onwards to gold and glory
Yeah, playing Sweden might be interesting!
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yeah, playing Sweden might be interesting!
That count might have a wee bit of trouble along the way, of course. Challenging a Duke (or King) - and his formidable resources - head to head can be bad for one's continued existence. Of course there are alternate methods...Varyar said:Which in itself is a remarkable feature. I can't wait until I may lead Count Nobody of Shithole onwards to gold and glory
Varyar said:Which in itself is a remarkable feature. I can't wait until I may lead Count Nobody of Shithole onwards to gold and glory
My personal goal will be to make the Bishop of Durham the HRE
snuggs said:My personal goal will be to make the Bishop of Durham the HRE
Now then, the Prince-Bishop of Durham was hardly a no-body. One of the leading eccelasiastical figures in England, and what is more, one of its wealthiest landholders. And proud caretaker of, IMHO, the finest cathedral in Britain.
snuggs said:My personal goal will be to make the Bishop of Durham the HRE
Don't quote me on this, but I don't believe you can play Bishops since these men don't have children aside from bastards. It would be impossible to have a dynasty. It would be interesting though to see an English bishop ascend to the Imperial Throne of the Romans.
VenetianPriest said:
By the screenshots, though, Rheims, Auxerre, and some other known ecclesiastical sees are in. Interestingly enough, celibacy for priests as an official doctrine of the Church had only been institutionalized during the Hildebrandine reforms (1049-73), so most assuredly not a 'given' as it is today.
Oooh, good point. Though there were a string of hereditary bishops in the C11, this was snuffed out by the same administration that started work on the cathedral we see today.
Hmmm. If CK has 'rationalised' this and bishops with kickarse temporal power are treated exactly like nobles, fair enough for the purposes of the game - better than the BoD and others are unplayable.
Hmmm. If CK has 'rationalised' this and bishops with kickarse temporal power are treated exactly like nobles, fair enough for the purposes of the game - better than the BoD and others are unplayable.
DaPacemDomine said:
I noticed some of those shields as a Bishops, but I'm unsure if they are playable.
Additional options and powers of a bishops would need to be included if Bishops are playable. Although 1066 is in the middle of the dates you gave for those reforms, I can't see Bishops marrying and having children. It's conceivable that you could play each and every Bishop of say York without needing children, but how would you ever reach game over without a chance of your dynasty dying out. I guess there's a chance that heathens could take over the diocease.
If you (your ruler) go for a while without having kids will it be possible to blame your wife and either get the marriage annulled or your wife's head chopped off? It might be nice to go "Henry VIII" occasionally.
One of the great problems with that, though, is that few feudal lords in 1066 have the leeway to piss off a father-in-law by divorcing or executing his lovely (which is a debatable sentiment, if screenshots of females to this point are any indication ) daughter. It did happen, though. Robert Guiscard married a hideously wealthy though politically undistinguished woman by the name of Alberada, and later divorced her to marry the Lombard princess of Salerno, Sachelgaita, to ease the conquest of Sicily. If you're not a king/magnate, or the greatest conqueror between Julius Caesar and Napoleon, I think divorce will prove most disadvantageous, though.
) daughter. It did happen, though. Robert Guiscard married a hideously wealthy though politically undistinguished woman by the name of Alberada, and later divorced her to marry the Lombard princess of Salerno, Sachelgaita, to ease the conquest of Sicily. If you're not a king/magnate, or the greatest conqueror between Julius Caesar and Napoleon, I think divorce will prove most disadvantageous, though. 
snuggs said:
Oh really? You wouldn't happen to know where I can read up on the Bishops of Durham, especially something containing a list of the Bishops and the dates of their reigns.
When exactly did they gain their palatine status? I assume they lost it during the Reformation...
I'm may be wrong, but I seem to recall it being said that you can control various people, probably religious figures and have them placed in useful positions, not least being made pope. My minds hazy as I decided not to pay much attention to it at the time it was being spoken about. If thats the case, then, even if you can't play as the Bishop of Durham, you could have him as your man and lobby to have him installed as various high status figures, whatever they may be.
Anyone know?
Anyone know?
MrT said:That count might have a wee bit of trouble along the way, of course. Challenging a Duke (or King) - and his formidable resources - head to head can be bad for one's continued existence. Of course there are alternate methods...
Care to elaborate on those methods?
Ah, I have some fond memories from MTW regarding alternative tactics. Sending assassins and inquisitors to kill of the neighbour's heirs, and then wait until the king dies and his lands turn rebel...
o Galleblære said:Yeah, playing Sweden might be interesting!
Touché! :rofl:
Nikolai said:Yes, every Christian King, Count and Duke is playable.
so you can play vassal also, very cool,
now that's very nice, and I really mean VERY nice. This means you can play the Burgundian duke, vassal to the French crown and in the long term work to become the French nemesis
Demetrios said:
Durham gained palatine status almost immediately with the Norman Conquest, and only lost it in 1836, certainly an exception rather than the rule.
To quote Anthony Bek, Bishop of Durham from 1284-1311, "There are two kings in England, namely the Lord King of England, wearing a crown in sign of his regality and the Lord Bishop of Durham wearing a mitre in place of a crown, in sign of his regality in the diocese of Durham".
At the time of the Conquest, Aethelwine, an Anglo-Saxon, was Bishop of Durham. In the midst of the great 'Harrying of the North' which William conducted after some 700 Normans were massacred in Durham, Aethelwine was unseated, and replaced by William Walcher. Shortly thereafter, Walcher was vested with the authority as 'Earl of Northumbria', and given complete authority in coordinating the defenses of Northern England. In 1081, the official 'Palatine' status was conferred, with complete political control for the Bishop south of the rivers Tyne and Derwent. In addition, Palatine status gave the Prince-Bishops the power to - hold their own parliament, - raise their own armies, - appoint their own sheriffs and Justices, - administer their own laws, - levy taxes and customs duties, - create fairs and markets, - issue charters, - salvage shipwrecks, - collect revenue from mines, - administer the forests - and mint their own coins.
A list of the Prince-Bishops can be found here: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dla0www/c_tour/lists.html#Bishops
Sure.Varyar said:Care to elaborate on those methods?
Ah, I have some fond memories from MTW regarding alternative tactics. Sending assassins and inquisitors to kill of the neighbour's heirs, and then wait until the king dies and his lands turn rebel...
In about 3 or 4 weeks.
In very general terms I can easily think of 2 non-field-combat ways:
#1 Inheritance: arrange for your dynasty to marry into the Duke's line and then "hope" for one of your children to inherit the title. It would be tricky without the use of option #2
#2 A dagger in the back will seriously cramp the Duke's style.
Demetrios said:
Good link, DPD. The last one with effective autonomy was John Cosin, who felt the wind of change and made over much of the redundant administrative buildings to what became Durham University.
DPD mentions Walcher, unfortunately William didn't leave him with the means to enforce his authority so he was left to 'impose feudalism' more or less single handed and got horribly killed by the men of Gateshead.
Not only did Durham nominally retain its legal status until the C19 (together with its vast landholdings), the Palatine tag wasn't formally lost until 1974.
On reflection though, the place with a line of hereditary priors was in fact Hexham. My bad.
I'm very proud.
DaPacemDomine said:
Thank you very much. This goes into the ruler lists - I've been looking for a good list of the Prince-Bishops of Durham for a good while!
Demetrios said:Thank you very much. This goes into the ruler lists - I've been looking for a good list of the Prince-Bishops of Durham for a good while!
*peers* Does this mean we can dare hope that one has the opportunity to play ecclesiasts in CK?
