How could you not want a complicated HRE? If diplomacy and other things aren't complicated, the game will turn into EU2 where you have to warmonger to get some excitement.
The HRE should be as complicated, and detailed as possible.
-
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.
How could you not want a complicated HRE? If diplomacy and other things aren't complicated, the game will turn into EU2 where you have to warmonger to get some excitement.
The HRE should be as complicated, and detailed as possible.
Id say thats true in EU2. But to be King of Germany in 1066, BEFORE the Investiture Conflict started, was no more "complicated" than trying to shuttle an army of 7500 across the Channel and conquer all of England, meanwhile trying to keep the French King out of your Continental Duchy.
Or not more "complicated" than being King of France while your greatest vassal holds the Duchies of Normandy, Aquitaine, & Brittany, the County of Anjou, and on top of all that, a Kingdom of his own across the sea.
Again, complicated is one thing; Id dare say it was complicated being King of any country in 1066...but the HRE of CK era WAS NOT that of EU2 era.
Or not more "complicated" than being King of France while your greatest vassal holds the Duchies of Normandy, Aquitaine, & Brittany, the County of Anjou, and on top of all that, a Kingdom of his own across the sea.
Again, complicated is one thing; Id dare say it was complicated being King of any country in 1066...but the HRE of CK era WAS NOT that of EU2 era.
I´d say not because in that case you have a few hundred hard core gamers playing it which is fine as long as you don´t actually try to make money of a game.
Anyone got a good idea of how the HRE assigned nobles to the different marches and duchies? Empress Agnes gave the Zahringens the Duchy of Carinthia, how common was this kind of thing around 1066?
Most of them by this point were hereditary, but a particularly troublesome vassal could be removed (when possible) by a a strong ruler, and replaced by a more cooperative candidate....
Agnes' grant to Berthold von Zahringen illustrates 1 of the 3 main policies the Emperors used when appointing a new candidate to one of the great duchies.
1. Berthold was not a Bavarian, held no important lands in Carinthia, and was viewed there as an outsider; therefore he was a "safer" candidate in imperial eyes than a native noble with an established powerbase there who commanded the loyalty of the tribal vassals. By appointing a duke from another tribe/duchy, the king assumed: 1) if he revolted he could not command widespread support and/or resources within his duchy; 2) it stressed the nature of the duchy as a royal office (appointed by the king) instead of an elective one (chosen by the tribe). This hopefully would result in setting the duke and his vassals against each other and rendering both dependent on the king for support against the other. It was practiced most frequently in Swabia & Bavaria by the Franconian & Saxon kings to keep South Germany in line.
2. Any king's preference if he could get away with it was to replace native tribal dukes with members of his own family. This was especially effective when the royal appointee was married to a native heiress; he, and especially any offspring by the "princess" would appear more "legitimate" to the tribal nobility.
3. Another choice, used especially when the duchy was in revolt and the king wanted help reconquering it, was to appoint a loyal member of the local tribal nobility that would lead the fight; again, it helped to marry him to a daughter from the previous and/or deposed house or even a royal "princess".
1. Berthold was not a Bavarian, held no important lands in Carinthia, and was viewed there as an outsider; therefore he was a "safer" candidate in imperial eyes than a native noble with an established powerbase there who commanded the loyalty of the tribal vassals. By appointing a duke from another tribe/duchy, the king assumed: 1) if he revolted he could not command widespread support and/or resources within his duchy; 2) it stressed the nature of the duchy as a royal office (appointed by the king) instead of an elective one (chosen by the tribe). This hopefully would result in setting the duke and his vassals against each other and rendering both dependent on the king for support against the other. It was practiced most frequently in Swabia & Bavaria by the Franconian & Saxon kings to keep South Germany in line.
2. Any king's preference if he could get away with it was to replace native tribal dukes with members of his own family. This was especially effective when the royal appointee was married to a native heiress; he, and especially any offspring by the "princess" would appear more "legitimate" to the tribal nobility.
3. Another choice, used especially when the duchy was in revolt and the king wanted help reconquering it, was to appoint a loyal member of the local tribal nobility that would lead the fight; again, it helped to marry him to a daughter from the previous and/or deposed house or even a royal "princess".
Last edited:
The duchies, palatinates, landgravates, and marches, ie, those states ruled by an Imperial Prince, were the king's direct vassals. So he had the right to appoint/depose their rulers. The Princes however felt that these offices were also hereditary; so while they acknowledged the king's right to dispose of them as his fiefs, they also demanded that he follow the rules when doing so.
These rules were frequently stretched and broken, but were generally: 1) Imperial fiefs must be regranted within a year & a day; 2) The king cant just annex the vacant fief to the royal lands but must appoint a new prince. The best way around this was to install a royal family member, thereby bringing the duchy into the royal house but still technically obeying the rules. It was ok if the king retained a duchy he held prior to election, like the Ottos in Saxony and Salians in Franconia.
If the king disregarded the rules it excited the princes and encouraged them to unite against him. Also, any nobles who felt their legitimate claim to succession had been passed over were likely to revolt. Plus, the king generally needed a reason to depose a prince, like a rebellion or a violation of feudal or tribal law, and traditionally required a vote of the Diet or at least support among some of the other princes to proceed.
The best example of a strong king who bent the rules to his advantage was Conrad II; himself Duke of Franconia & King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy as well as HRE, he installed his son Henry III as Duke of Swabia, Bavaria, & Carinthia. Technically he hadnt combined all these duchies in his own hands, but yet they were under direct control of the royal family, which thus had a tighter grip on Germany than ever before or since.
These rules were frequently stretched and broken, but were generally: 1) Imperial fiefs must be regranted within a year & a day; 2) The king cant just annex the vacant fief to the royal lands but must appoint a new prince. The best way around this was to install a royal family member, thereby bringing the duchy into the royal house but still technically obeying the rules. It was ok if the king retained a duchy he held prior to election, like the Ottos in Saxony and Salians in Franconia.
If the king disregarded the rules it excited the princes and encouraged them to unite against him. Also, any nobles who felt their legitimate claim to succession had been passed over were likely to revolt. Plus, the king generally needed a reason to depose a prince, like a rebellion or a violation of feudal or tribal law, and traditionally required a vote of the Diet or at least support among some of the other princes to proceed.
The best example of a strong king who bent the rules to his advantage was Conrad II; himself Duke of Franconia & King of Germany, Italy, & Burgundy as well as HRE, he installed his son Henry III as Duke of Swabia, Bavaria, & Carinthia. Technically he hadnt combined all these duchies in his own hands, but yet they were under direct control of the royal family, which thus had a tighter grip on Germany than ever before or since.
Last edited:
I definitely agree that the HRE needs to be better modelled in Crusader Kings, not only because of historical accuracy, but also because it would be very fun to dabble in political plotting and intriguing, and there is no better place to do that than the HRE, in my opinion.
True! I agree. It would be fun, you could be Emperor or stop Emperor from being a ruler.
Endless possibilities both as noble and/or king. On top of that, once youre done in Germany, youve got Burgundy and Italy to mess with...I dont know how CK will work, but in EU terms, Germany should have CBs/shields on both kingdoms...