Sorry if this has been asked before, but will the HRE be handled differently in this than in EU/EU2? Because as far as i know, the HRE was pretty much a single empire at this time...i could, of course, be totally wrong.
-
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.
Actually it wasn't more cohesive than in the EU2 time, but it was as cohesive as any other state you could find in the XI century. The problem with HRE is that, while other states walked the path of centralization and supremacy of the King, the HRE didn't.
Well I would say it´s a bit of a more cohesive than later on but pretty much every state was very decentralized in these times. Nevertheless I think the title of emperor should intitle more than a right of passage.
I already tried to campaign for a more in-depth simulation of the HRE for EU2, but this time it is a must. Basic info about the structure of the empire can be found here (especially the second link gives a nice overview):
http://www.geocities.com/vrozn/index.html
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm
Hartmann
http://www.geocities.com/vrozn/index.html
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm
Hartmann
That´s a surprise given your avatar lol. Good links though. I just hope things don´t get overly complicated though. More than EU2 is needed but not as much as that page.
Sorry for not getting back sooner...
by 'single', i meant that i thought the HRE was more like the other powers of europe, and did have actual power, not like it was in EU i.e just a name and an almost meaningless title.
I just hope the Emperor is treated like any other supreme ruler.
But the game starts duringthe minority of Henry IV giving Paradox the chance to ignore the historical fact that the Emperor Henry III was the unchallenged lord of western Christendom.
But the game starts duringthe minority of Henry IV giving Paradox the chance to ignore the historical fact that the Emperor Henry III was the unchallenged lord of western Christendom.
The 1066 start date is an unfortunate one for both Christian Empires, Byzantine and Holy Roman. In 1066 both possessed strong foundations but weak monarchs.
In 1066, as it happened, the Byzantine Imperial family was represented almost exclusively by women, and the Empire was going through a phase where the Emperor would assume the throne by marrying one of the Imperial ladies. In 1067 Emperor Romanus V Diogenes married Eudocia, bitterly opposed by the Imperial beauracracy. Additionally, the military successes of the previous Macedonian dynasty against the neighboring Muslim states had crippled many of the Eastern Empire's traditional enemies, resulting in a lapse of conflict and a slow decay of the Byzantine army. The sudden appearance of the Seljuk Turks found the army unprepared, and Romanus V was struggling to restore its abilities. In the event, Romanus V was betrayed at Manzikert in 1071 by his internal enemies, and the Byzantine Empire's greatness was forever shattered.
The Holy Roman Empire went through a similar traumatic phase that forever broke its greatness. In 1066, the Emperor was a minor, Henry IV, who grew to manhood and assumed authority without fuss. However, he almost immediately became embroiled with the Papacy in the famed Investiture Crisis of 1075. The Empire relied on the Church beauracracy for governing the realm, and the Emperor reserved the right to name the bishops of the Empire. Pope Gregory VII insisted this was the Pope's priviledge alone. The resulting controversy lasted 50 years, and ultimately undermined the power of both Emperor and Pope.
Had CK started in 1075, both Empires could have been displayed as the cripples they became; such crippling was crucial to the occurance of the Crusades, which began at a time when the Emperors were weak and the Pope was strong. In fact, without Manzikert it is hard to imagine any Crusades at all, because before that crucial battle it was the assumed duty of the Eastern Emperor to protect Christendom against the Moslems, and the Emperor didn't look to be in any need of help.
Given the 1066 start date, the designers have to decide if they want to give the Emperors the ability to maintain their strength, or force their decline. Tough choice.
In 1066, as it happened, the Byzantine Imperial family was represented almost exclusively by women, and the Empire was going through a phase where the Emperor would assume the throne by marrying one of the Imperial ladies. In 1067 Emperor Romanus V Diogenes married Eudocia, bitterly opposed by the Imperial beauracracy. Additionally, the military successes of the previous Macedonian dynasty against the neighboring Muslim states had crippled many of the Eastern Empire's traditional enemies, resulting in a lapse of conflict and a slow decay of the Byzantine army. The sudden appearance of the Seljuk Turks found the army unprepared, and Romanus V was struggling to restore its abilities. In the event, Romanus V was betrayed at Manzikert in 1071 by his internal enemies, and the Byzantine Empire's greatness was forever shattered.
The Holy Roman Empire went through a similar traumatic phase that forever broke its greatness. In 1066, the Emperor was a minor, Henry IV, who grew to manhood and assumed authority without fuss. However, he almost immediately became embroiled with the Papacy in the famed Investiture Crisis of 1075. The Empire relied on the Church beauracracy for governing the realm, and the Emperor reserved the right to name the bishops of the Empire. Pope Gregory VII insisted this was the Pope's priviledge alone. The resulting controversy lasted 50 years, and ultimately undermined the power of both Emperor and Pope.
Had CK started in 1075, both Empires could have been displayed as the cripples they became; such crippling was crucial to the occurance of the Crusades, which began at a time when the Emperors were weak and the Pope was strong. In fact, without Manzikert it is hard to imagine any Crusades at all, because before that crucial battle it was the assumed duty of the Eastern Emperor to protect Christendom against the Moslems, and the Emperor didn't look to be in any need of help.
Given the 1066 start date, the designers have to decide if they want to give the Emperors the ability to maintain their strength, or force their decline. Tough choice.
Last edited:
I would take exception to your view that the Holy Roman Empire was "crippled" in 1075. THe apogee of Imperial power was not reached until the late 12th Century when Barbarossa actually ruled the entire Empire, Italy as well as the Transalpine lands.
I agree. The decline of the HRE was slow but not continuous. But beginning with the Hohenstaufen there was a steady trend of the German princes/dukes/whatever to demand more independence and privileges from the Emperors, who granted it just for the sake of keeping them loyal enough to direct their military campaigns.
Maybe this could be solved by some multiple-choice events where you choose to either grant them more privileges (read: less money&troops for you) or deny it and face those nasty noble revolts, anti-Emperors and so on.
My opinion always was that after the last Hohenstaufen, Friedrich II ("stupor mundi") things went down the drain.
Btw. have some of you had the opportunity to visit his mysterious castle, the "castello del monte" in Apulia? I'm not one of those "new age" guys, mind you, but this thing inspired some very strange "Stonehenge"-feeling in me.
Hartmann
Btw. have some of you had the opportunity to visit his mysterious castle, the "castello del monte" in Apulia? I'm not one of those "new age" guys, mind you, but this thing inspired some very strange "Stonehenge"-feeling in me.
Hartmann
And pretty fast. Because of all the hassle with the Pope and Charles of Anjou nobody paid any attention to the northern states and they kinda got used to being independent.
After the massive debate I started in the EU2 forum about the HRE, I should just keep my mouth shut. But the truth is, the HRE of EU2 was nothing like the HRE of the CK era. It was, hands down, without a doubt, even considering the "Angevin Empire", the most powerful "kingdom" of Western Europe between the collapse of the Carolingians in Germany (911) and the Great Interregnum (1254-1273). While both England and France were mired in a veritable bog of invasions, the Germans smashed the Vikings, the Hungarians, and the Slavs, and then crossed the Alps and conquered Italy before annexing the Kingdom of Burgundy. The Ottos and early Salians installed & deposed Popes at will, dominated Denmark, Poland, Bohemia, and Hungary, and Henry VI even seized the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (1194), received the homage of various states in Outremer, and made England a vassal (1194) and Byzantium a tributary (1195).
While the Kings of France were struggling to control their own immediate vassals, the Germans were masters of 3 kingdoms stretching from the North Sea to the Mediterranean and from the Meuse-Rhone to the Oder and beyond. The Electors hadnt risen to power yet, the Golden Bull was an impossibility, the great Dukes owed the King knights' service, and while there were noble revolts like in any other kingdom, the great vassals were never as independent as say the Dukes of Aquitaine or Counts of Anjou in France.
It took the Investiture Conflict (1075-1122), the 2 Lombard Leagues (1167-), the Staufen-Welf civil war (1208-1215), the vile crusade against the Hohenstaufen, and the Interregnum (1250-1273) to reduce the HRE to its pitiful EU2 state. Yes, during all this mess, the Normans in England & Sicily were creating a more modern form of government and tighter hold on feudalism, but its ultimate embodiment was after all Frederick II. It was primarily his defeat as Emperor, his selling out of the German monarchy to appease the Princes so he could fight in Italy, and the Interregnum that followed that ruined the HRE.
Yet had Henry III not died leaving a minor on the throne (1056) or that minor Henry IV not stumbled into the Investiture Conflict immediately after smashing the Saxon opposition, the rest might never have happened. So if CK starts in 1066, I plan to rectify those errors...
While the Kings of France were struggling to control their own immediate vassals, the Germans were masters of 3 kingdoms stretching from the North Sea to the Mediterranean and from the Meuse-Rhone to the Oder and beyond. The Electors hadnt risen to power yet, the Golden Bull was an impossibility, the great Dukes owed the King knights' service, and while there were noble revolts like in any other kingdom, the great vassals were never as independent as say the Dukes of Aquitaine or Counts of Anjou in France.
It took the Investiture Conflict (1075-1122), the 2 Lombard Leagues (1167-), the Staufen-Welf civil war (1208-1215), the vile crusade against the Hohenstaufen, and the Interregnum (1250-1273) to reduce the HRE to its pitiful EU2 state. Yes, during all this mess, the Normans in England & Sicily were creating a more modern form of government and tighter hold on feudalism, but its ultimate embodiment was after all Frederick II. It was primarily his defeat as Emperor, his selling out of the German monarchy to appease the Princes so he could fight in Italy, and the Interregnum that followed that ruined the HRE.
Yet had Henry III not died leaving a minor on the throne (1056) or that minor Henry IV not stumbled into the Investiture Conflict immediately after smashing the Saxon opposition, the rest might never have happened. So if CK starts in 1066, I plan to rectify those errors...
Yeah, I agree with sonny, that HRE went in drain pretty fast after Henry IV and Fred II. I will unificate HRE! And also make Byzantines the master of Middle East. I will make sure that there shall be no repeating of mistakes the Emperors made, like letiing nobles run free when he didn't have to. HRE had potential to be the first centralized State so i will make it so. (Maybe not Whole HRE but at least, There will be few united kingdoms, not the way HRE is in latter era). HRE wird gewonnen! Byzantine Empire wird auch gewinnen! (Will win!)
Originally posted by Idiotboy
Join the club. I plan to make the Seljuks have A VERY BAD DAY.
The whole Middle East will be under Christian control!
Wow. Quite a good supply of future Crusaders.
I wonder if you can leave your kingdom/duchy behind you and become a true crusader king like Balduin the ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
I wonder if you can leave your kingdom/duchy behind you and become a true crusader king like Balduin the ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.