The Christian world in 1187

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by szopen76
Actually POland _was_ kingdom, but it has no king. I could be wrong, but i guess since country had few times king, it was universally recognised as kingdom, even if currently there was none to pick the title.

As far as I understand the royal crown and royal title that some Polish rulers received were not heriditary till the 14th century (this was somehow universal for other central european states where also some rulers were kings and some weren't - how it exactly worked I don't really know). Now Boleslaw 'the brave' was awarded the crown for himself but after his son was overthrown the royal dignity was refused by the successors. Boleslaw 'the Bold' was never awarded the crown from outside but claimed it himself for Poland therefor challenging the imperial authority which was recognized superior by earlier dukes. His successors didn't dare doing so, especially with the strong Hohenstauffens in Germany I presume. Otoh maybe refused it also on grounds that acceptance of a royal crown from the German emperor meant a direct submission to his supremacy (like happened in Bohemia for example). I guess with the choice of either a crown and submission or a crown and war with the empire was one between bad and worse
Anyway, the formal title of the ruler in Krakow after 1138 was something of senior princeps iirc...

@Demetrios
For Silesia/Slask iirc there were after 1177 three formal duchies - Legnicko-Wroclawskie (Liegnitz/Breslau) ruled by Boleslaw Wysoki (the Tall), Raciborskie (Ratibor; later extended with Bytom/Beuthen and Oswiecim/Auschwitz) ruled by Mieszko Platonogi (Stumblefeet) and Opolskie (Oppeln) ruled by Jaroslaw, a son of Boleslaw. I presume this was still the case in 1187, Oppeln fell to Boleslaw again around 1201 (I presume after this son died heirless).

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Originally posted by Havard
I guess that makes it pretty clear that Alfonso II of Aragon must have also been Alphonse I. The question is when...

In any case - I believe Provence would be best represented if it was a dependancy of Aragon at the time.

I'm still betting on 1181-85, but I'll wait for Demetrios's research.

What does "dependency" mean in this context? One man? Two branches of the same family? Do they have to act in concert? By the first criteria, Aragon was barely united with Provence (by my estimate, four years only). By the third, it is a stretch: the line from Provence eventually went to war with the line of Aragon in the next century over Sicily and stuff. When would "dependency" status end?

Piece of trivia: Alphonso was under three different suzerains for his lands almost at once -- Castile (for Aragon, although "released" in 1179), the King of France (for Barcelona, although suzerainity repudiated in 1180) and the Holy Roman Emperor (for Provence).

Is there any other monarch/nobleman to have so many sovereigns simultaneously?

 

[unmerged(17991)]

Duchy of Bohemia

Bedrich [Premyslovec]
Best title: Duke of Bohemia
Current location: Prague
Was born: 1141
Age to game start: 46
Family status: Married - Alzbeta of Hungary (Arpad)
Father: Vladislav II [Premyslovec]
Mother: Gertrude of Austria (Babenberg)


Footnote: Bedrich is Czech equivalent for Fridrich/Frederick

 

[unmerged(15867)]

I have problems with English names of Polish rules.

Let's clarify:

Boleslav Chrobry got the crown from the pope. His son immedietely was crowned without need of confimration from either pope or emperor, and nobody disoputed his title.

Boleslaw Smialy (the bold) recevied crown from pope IIRC too (generally, Polish kings and priinces always were stressing supremacy of pope above emperor and were usually sisding in conflicts with pope).

Example for Mieszko II could be used as proof that title was hereditary. Also Przemysl when asking for crown was mentioning previous coronation.

In general, in medieval world there were two powers which were able to grant crown: pope and emperor.

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by szopen76
I have problems with English names of Polish rules.

Let's clarify:

Boleslav Chrobry got the crown from the pope. His son immedietely was crowned without need of confimration from either pope or emperor, and nobody disoputed his title.

Boleslaw Smialy (the bold) recevied crown from pope IIRC too (generally, Polish kings and priinces always were stressing supremacy of pope above emperor and were usually sisding in conflicts with pope).

Example for Mieszko II could be used as proof that title was hereditary. Also Przemysl when asking for crown was mentioning previous coronation.

In general, in medieval world there were two powers which were able to grant crown: pope and emperor.

Well, Boleslaw the Brave was affirmed king by the emperor and Mieszko wasn't so I presume Mieszko sort of claimed the crown without it being ever approved as heriditary. B.Zientara writes in the poczet (krolow i ksiazat Polskich from 91) something like that Mieszko exploited the instable situation in Germany where he supproted opposition of the emperor and that opposition then could eventually confirm his rights to the crown (not to mention that Mieszko had claims on the imperial throne itself through his mother). Unfortunately for him the emperor defeated the opposition and when mieszko was defeated in his country by uprising of his brothers these resigned from royal authority as did his successors (and seemingly Mieszko during his 2nd cadence). So in this case it was clear that the imperial approval counted heavier than the papal.

In the case of Boleslaw the Bold actually it isn't clear according to the same poczet in article of A.Gieysztor how Boleslaw claimed the throne - he was crowned by the archbishop (of Gnesen I presume) but there are according to the writer no proves of any papal approval. Clearly it was disproved by the emperor (Gieysztor gives a citate of a German chronicle for this what a sin and provocation this act of Boleslaw was). And again after his exile Wladyslaw Herman resigned from any claims to the crown and none of his successors ever tried to assume that title - clearly the emperor had for now won it over the pope.

So I think it is indeed clear that all the Polish kings who beared the crown were never appointed such as hereditary rulers, but in some cases they claimed the royal title to themselves (presumably based on the first coronation but then only in the Polish interpretation of it). And when there was no opponent (read: strong German Emperor) they could be (temporarily) succesful. After 1295 this was sort of easier to keep Poland out of the hands of the Empire but in the 12th century with the Empire under Frederick Barbarossa it was undoable and foolish to offend the emperor.

 

[unmerged(15867)]

The whole point is whether Polish kings need at all confirmation of coronation by emperor. I will seek in my library for long discussion over that matter. The matter is very closely tied to relationship between emperors (who always were eager to claim Poland as their vassals, since emperors were always supreme leaders pof christian world and all) and Poland (who always think about itself as independent, except for times of weakness, as after Boleslav Crhobry death, or death of Boleslav Smialy, etc.

Another thing is _international_ recognition of the Polish kings and status of Polish kingdom.
It seems like Boleslav Smialy status was recognised.

 

[stibogis]

Kingdom of the Isle of Man - Godred IV

was there such a thing as king of man. Idont know about you burt I learned that the rulers of man the hebrides, the orkneys/shetlands were ruled by jarls that paied taxes to the Norwegian king. The Only time I am sure ther ewas no jarl on Man was when Magnus berrfot sat his son sigurd jorsalfare to rule this Island! Man was entirely under Norway from around the viking age upuntill Magnus lagabøter I think when they were given to scotland togheter with the hebrides, in exchange for the scotish king to approve the norwegian right to the orkneys/shetlands!

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by stibogis
was there such a thing as king of man. Idont know about you burt I learned that the rulers of man the hebrides, the orkneys/shetlands were ruled by jarls that paied taxes to the Norwegian king. The Only time I am sure ther ewas no jarl on Man was when Magnus berrfot sat his son sigurd jorsalfare to rule this Island! Man was entirely under Norway from around the viking age upuntill Magnus lagabøter I think when they were given to scotland togheter with the hebrides, in exchange for the scotish king to approve the norwegian right to the orkneys/shetlands!

http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/man.htm

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by szopen76
The whole point is whether Polish kings need at all confirmation of coronation by emperor. I will seek in my library for long discussion over that matter. The matter is very closely tied to relationship between emperors (who always were eager to claim Poland as their vassals, since emperors were always supreme leaders pof christian world and all) and Poland (who always think about itself as independent, except for times of weakness, as after Boleslav Crhobry death, or death of Boleslav Smialy, etc.

I'm sure it would be easier if they had in these days made decent contracts on these matters, signed by all parties and some neutral one's and published all around the world for everyone to know then there wouldn't be such controversies on this matter later

Another thing is _international_ recognition of the Polish kings and status of Polish kingdom.
It seems like Boleslav Smialy status was recognised. [/B]

I'm sure that at least the opponents of the Empire did recognize that status indeed. But in any way what accounted to Boleslaw did not account at all to Casimir II. Casimir did never claim a royal title - in fact he never even really claimed to be the ruler of all Poland (like he did not try really hard to expulse Mieszko from Wielkopolska). In this he wouldn't dare thus to provoke the emperor but he wouldn't even have support from the pope here as he did after all break the rule of Boleslaw's testamant that the popes and emperors were both guaranteeing.

 

[Gnome]

Originally posted by stibogis
was there such a thing as king of man. Idont know about you burt I learned that the rulers of man the hebrides, the orkneys/shetlands were ruled by jarls that paied taxes to the Norwegian king.

After 1079 the Kingdom of Man and the Isles was under very loose Norwegian overlordship. In 1164, the kingdom split into two; the Kingdom of the Isles and the Kingdom of Man.

Depending upon what islands are included on the map we may want the Kingdom of the Isles included in 1187 as well.

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Vandelay
Have you seen the entire map (or province list) or is that NDA?

I have seen the map. Any information apart from that is under NDA...

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Demetrios
Got my dates muddled there a bit.

Henry may have wanted Aquitaine to be an intergal part of his possessions, but the people there didn't accept that. To them, Eleanor and Richard were their rulers, not Henry. And after her son became king, Eleanor definitely ruled Aquitaine as Duchess in her own right. It wasn't until her death in 1204 that the Duchy was definitively united with the crown of England.

Regardless of how the people of Aquataine loved their Duchess, the rest of the world saw Aquataine as a part of England (o.k. France never really liked the idea). Eleanor was Duchess Emeritus (or whatever you call a retired duchess) because not only was she still imprisoned in 1187 but Richard was the Duke since 1168(?) and ruled the duchy. Even though he and his dad had some troubles, I don't think he ever condsidered Aquataine anything other than an English posession.

 

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Demetrios
Good point. So we should have:

Duke of Wielkopolska: Mieszko III
Duke of Malopolska, Mazowsze, and Sandomierz: Kazimierz II Sprawiedliwy (the Just)
Duke of Œl¹sk/Silesia(-Wroclaw): Boles³aw I Wysoki (the Tall) (There is a Duke of Œl¹sk-G³ogów at the time, but he was subordinate to his brother the Duke of Œl¹sk-Wroc³aw)
Duke of Pomorze/Pommern: Bogus³aw I (died on 17 May 1187 and the Duchy was split between his sons Bogus³aw II at Szczecin/Stettin and Kazimierz II at Demmin)
Duke of Pomorze Gdañskie (Pomerelia): Sambor I

Sorry that I don't have the ability to type in all the marks on various Polish letters...

Corrected Polish letters from you.

Also, it's "Pomorze Gdañskie" (i.e. "Danzig Pommern") not "Pomorze-Gdañskie") as "Gdañskie" is used as a geographical adjective here.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Kasperus
@Demetrios
For Silesia/Slask iirc there were after 1177 three formal duchies - Legnicko-Wroclawskie (Liegnitz/Breslau) ruled by Boleslaw Wysoki (the Tall), Raciborskie (Ratibor; later extended with Bytom/Beuthen and Oswiecim/Auschwitz) ruled by Mieszko Platonogi (Stumblefeet) and Opolskie (Oppeln) ruled by Jaroslaw, a son of Boleslaw. I presume this was still the case in 1187, Oppeln fell to Boleslaw again around 1201 (I presume after this son died heirless).

I misread my notes - actually there were four Silesian Dukes in 1187 - at Wroclaw, Glogow, Opole, and Raciborz, all brothers, the sons of Duke Boleslaw Kedzierzawy of Slask. However, I assume that Boleslaw Wysoki of Slask-Wroclaw would be the senior Duke among the Silesian Duchies, and for game puproses it might be more reasonable to have Silesia/Slask playable as a large single (but highly decentralized) state rather than broken up into four small duchies...

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Martinus
Corrected Polish letters from you.

Also, it's "Pomorze Gdañskie" (i.e. "Danzig Pommern") not "Pomorze-Gdañskie") as "Gdañskie" is used as a geographical adjective here.

So, which would be considered more correct in Polish usage - Pomorze Gdanskie or Pomorze-Gdansk? I noticed that Casperus used the adjectival forms for the Silesian duchies as well instead of the hyphenated forms usually used elsewhere (Slask Wroclawskie instead of Slask-Wroclaw).

 

[Kasperus]

The adjective-form I used is for the word of duchy - ksiestwo Legnicko-Wroclawskie or just Wroclawskie but as adjective of 'Slask' it would be Slask Legnicko-Wroclawski or just Wroclawski, whatever you want - it is a different, how you say it, geslacht - can a word has a sex? Slask is 'male' and ksiestwo is 'none' so the adjective differs... and then of course with the special signs I'm too lazy to type in....

Pomorze Gdanskie it would then be or Ksiestwo Gdanskie (the former is mostly the name of the territory, the later is literally 'duchy of Danzig'. Most correct would probably be Ksiestwo Gdansko-Pomorskie just to make it a bigger linguistic mess )

But do you really want to include it like that? I always prefer names of people in the native language but for countries I would use English...

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Sonny
Regardless of how the people of Aquataine loved their Duchess, the rest of the world saw Aquataine as a part of England (o.k. France never really liked the idea). Eleanor was Duchess Emeritus (or whatever you call a retired duchess) because not only was she still imprisoned in 1187 but Richard was the Duke since 1168(?) and ruled the duchy. Even though he and his dad had some troubles, I don't think he ever condsidered Aquataine anything other than an English posession.

The main thing that is being forgotten here is that the game focuses on dynasties instead of states. Eleanor was the still-living representative of a dynasty which were the legitimate rulers of Aquataine, and the Plantagenets only derived their claims through her. Had all the descendents of Henry and Eleanor died without heirs (unlikely as that might seem, although it could have happened), England would have no claim on Aquataine, as the two states would be inherited by different lines (Aquataine presumably by the descendants of Eleanor's and Louis's daughters, while I tremble to think of the anarchy that would ensue in England if all the descendants of Henry II were to die heirless )

 

[Martinus]

Kasperus is right.

Sometimes it is an adjective (like Western Saxony), and sometimes it is a Duchy composed of two parts (like Saxe-Coburg).

Slask (Silesia), as well as Pomorze (Pommerania) were divided into a number of smaller Duchies, with adjective forms used, often derived from the city being a "capital" of the Duchy (e.g. Wroclaw, Gdansk etc.)

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Kasperus
The adjective-form I used is for the word of duchy - ksiestwo Legnicko-Wroclawskie or just Wroclawskie but as adjective of 'Slask' it would be Slask Legnicko-Wroclawski or just Wroclawski, whatever you want - it is a different, how you say it, geslacht - can a word has a sex? Slask is 'male' and ksiestwo is 'none' so the adjective differs... and then of course with the special signs I'm too lazy to type in....

Pomorze Gdanskie it would then be or Ksiestwo Gdanskie (the former is mostly the name of the territory, the later is literally 'duchy of Danzig'. Most correct would probably be Ksiestwo Gdansko-Pomorskie just to make it a bigger linguistic mess )

But do you really want to include it like that? I always prefer names of people in the native language but for countries I would use English...

Heh, to keep it simple they should probably just be Slask-Wroclaw and Pomorze-Gdansk. Much easier that way, and it follows the conventions in other languages.

 

[stibogis]

But they are still a part of the norwegian realm? that was actually what I was wondering about. Will Norway have any claims to Ireland/scotland or England to justify the wars Magnus Berrfot started?