This is one of the reasons Bretons and others use the title petty king.
Last edited:
The official "nag snow crystal for sneak peaks" thread!
- Thread starter riadach
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
This is one of the reasons Bretons and others use the title petty king.
I always figured it was included with Wales to represent the fact that the area was known as "West Wales" by the Anglo-Saxons...plus it gives Celtic players in the area more of a chance to form their own Kingdom if they manage to break free of England.
On that note, I mentioned something like this a while back, but I think there's possibly a case to be made for keeping the 769 borders of Wales the size they are throughout most of the game, rather than splitting a Duchy up between start dates (which always felt wrong to me, considering you can't do this in a normal playthrough)...for an English player, the Duchy of Powys could become the Earldom (well, Duchy) of Shrewsbury or March. Irredentists have claimed the area as "Welsh Lost Lands" and just outside the game timeframe, the area was administered together with Wales as a part of the "Council of Wales and the Marches", so although the area was continuously held by Mercia/England in the later dates, it could be an interesting alteration for gameplay purposes...
Spanish kings should actually be petty kings also, basically every in-game duchy was a kingdom in real history:
Kingdom of Asturias
Crown of Castile:
Kingdom of Leon
Kingdom of Galicia
Kingdom of Castile
Kingdom of Toledo
Kingdom of Cordoba
Kingdom of Seville
Kingdom of Granada
Kingdom of Jaén
Kingdom of Murcia
Crown of Aragon:
Kingdom of Aragon
Kingdom of Valencia
Kingdom of Majorca
(Principality of Catalonia)
Kingdom of Navarre
Kingdom of Portugal
Kingdom of Algarves
Thus, any independent duke in the Peninsula should be called a petty king, given the fact that a royal title was so commonplace and calling them dukes seems out of place.
On most of the map, kingdoms follow cultures. Sweden contains Swedish culture, Denmark Danish, Finland Finnish etc. Same with Cornwall. What really confuses me is that there are very few completely illogical exceptions. Like the new kingdom of Estonia literally follows year 2018 borders while it should include Ingria and several counties in Latvia.
First of all, I have to say I absolutely cannot wait until this is released; it's going to be so much fun to play! I have a few questions about some of the de jure Kingdoms, though...
*As you noted, there are plans to add the Stem Duchies as Kingdoms that can be formed via event...is there a reason why they're not just de jure? It feels odd to have Bavaria independent from the rest of Germany this late in the game...and even in 867 it's odd, considering that upon the death of Ludwig the German, his kids divided up his lands and also created the Kingdoms of Saxony and Swabia as a result of an a agreement that had been made before the timeframe. Wouldn't it make more sense to have all the Stem Duchies just in the game until 1180 (when Henry the Lion was stripped of his titles) or something?
*Are there plans to make a titular Kingdom of Toledo? Badajoz and Valencia do somewhat correspond to powerful Taifas that controlled those areas, but Toledo was just as big and doesn't get anything...also, has anything been done to Aragon? I remember thinking it was a bit unfair that the Muslim ruler starts with a titular "Duchy of Zaragoza" while the Christian ruler nearby gets the De Jure Duchy of Aragon. I suppose it's there for balancing purposes and to make sure the Muslim ruler doesn't just immediately declare war on the north, but...ehh, is there a way to make that a bit fairer?
*With the new Kingdoms of Epirus and Thrace now covering the bulk of what was originally Greece, and the former corresponding mostly with the post-Fourth Crusade state, would it be a better idea to rename it the "Kingdom of Thessaloniki"? Although that state was short-lived, it could also be a good way of representing the importance of Thessaloniki itself, which I believe was considered a "co-capital" of the Byzantine Empire at a few points in time?
It occurs to me that you could also potentially make Trebizond a bit bigger, extending into Cappadocia, and thus make it not as immediately easy to form...if you consider the borders used by the many states that preceded it (those of the Kingdom of Pontus, the Roman Province of Cappadocia and later Diocese of Pontus, and the Armeniac Themes of the Byzantine Empire), I think you could justify it...plus, it could also become "Armenia Minor" if held by an Armenian ruler and perhaps even be something to try to target (for instance, perhaps there's an event to proclaim the Armenian Empire if you are culturally Armenian and hold the Kingdoms of Armenia, Trebizond and Mesopotamia)...
One good thing to come of the whole Greece change is that the Exarch of Greece won't desire my damn Thracian holdings.
Thank you! How related were the Bolghars, Khazars, and Avars? From what I understand, upon their first appearance in Central Europe, the Avars were mainly mixed between the Uar, Hephthalite, and Turkic people, assimilating some of the Germanic remnants and the Slavs of Pannonia, over time, as well. I suppose because of this, the Avars are the least related of the three aforementioned tribes. What about Khazars and Bolghars, how similar were they?
They were part of what would be called "Oghur" Turks, that is they shared a peculiarity where they had "r" at places most Turks had "z". The Oghur Turks were more related to one another, and a little more distantly to the "Common" Turks. I guess you could view it like the Oghur are Norse, while the Common Turk groups are like Germans, Dutch, etc; related, but not as close as to those within the group.
The Hephthalites (and associated Uar probably) were an East Iranian group, related to Scytho-Sarmatians/Alans/Ossetian, Sogdian, and Pashtun peoples. They may have been more directly a confederation of Scythians and Afghans who, after the collapse, would turn into the Khotanese Saka and the Zunbils respectively. This is supported by a fair bit of evidence, pointing a bit more in the Pashto direction: they started in Afghanistan, with an on-off relationship to Buddhism, and the names of their emperors seem more directly tied to Pashto than to Saka. The on-off with Buddhism can be seen in postclassical Afghanistan, with the competition between pagan (a variant of what could be said to be pre-Vedic Folk Hinduism, still practiced by the Kalash today) and Buddhist tribes. There are, however, also ties to large-scale Saka migrations with the Hepthalites, and the Saka adoption of Buddhism and mass settling down into larger kingdoms, compared to perhaps a few trading city-states prior, especially compared to the other Scythians, the Alans, who remained nomadic and pagan for quite a long time after, seems to indicate a possible Hepthalite influence in the mix. Both a major Afghan clan and a small minority in the Tarim with a large amount of Iranian vocabulary in their dialect have traditionally used the name "Abdal(i)", which is a name the Hepthalites called themselves. Ergo, a confederation of Pasthun and Saka clans makes the most sense.
I have to say all this because the Avars were never really going to fit in quite right. They're as Turkic as Hungarians are Uralic, which is to say their cultural, national, and linguistic identity relies on it heavily as a defining feature, but genetically they mostly composed of preexisting populations. Of course, this is true across most of Europe really - continental Celts and insular Celts might have radically different genetics despite being so closely related. Basques are generally considered unrelated to Spaniards despite sharing a lot of genetics. The Indo-European migrations failed to displace local populations and instead assimilated them, as migrations tend to do. We consider them to be distinct anyways, because it is more their cultural practice that defines them throughout history and even presently, above any degree of archaeogenetics.
@Snow Crystal
I'm going to focus here on the extra Munster province. Number 15.
15 - Iarmumhain - This was held by the Ciarraige Luachra Dynasty, who would later become the Uí Conchobhair Ciarraige
In 769:
For 791, we have a reference to one Maelcobha son of Flann Feorna as king of the Ciarriage. Therefore, Maelcobha, or even his father Flann Feorna could be our starting point.
The genealogy we have is as follows:
Flann Feorna
¦
Maelcobha d. 791
¦
Cobhthach d. 848
¦
Cormac
¦
Indreachtach ?Maolghorm c. 903
¦
Diarmaid ---- Cormac d. 910
¦
Muiredach d. 1004
¦
Conchobhar ---- Mac Bethad d. 1014 ---- Mac Raith d. 1015. ---- Mathgamhain
¦ .............................................................................................................................¦
Cathal....................................................................................................................Mac d. 1032
¦
Conchobhar d. 1033
¦
Mac Bethad d. 1086
¦
Mac Raith
I think, then, we can choose Cormac Ciarraige as ruler for the 867 start and Mac Bethad Ua Concobhair Ciarraige as king for the 1066 start.
http://sites.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/munster.htm#ciarraige
Looking at the Kings of Munster, shouldn't Toirdelbach Ua Briain be the king of Mumu in 1066 and not a courtier? The current king in 1066 doesn't seem to have any information on him being a ruler at all.
The current king is Murchadh who was Donnchad mac Briain's son. It seems he immediately succeeded his father but Toirdhealbhach marched in and his supporters fled him. He and his son, Brian an Sgéith Gheirr, later on became an ally of Toirdelbach and his son Muircheartach.
Last edited:
@Snow Crystal I really love that you've added Corfu and zakynthos in the game as well as making Anatolia and Greece smaller .. really doesnot make a bug impact to me there's no a big diferrence any way but allow me to try to convinced you too add Kythira as well .Kythira is an island in Greece lying opposite the south-eastern tip of the Peloponnese peninsula down to Sparta that is represented to ck2 map and its visual to us from ancient times until the mid 19th century was a crossroads of merchants, sailors, and conquerors. Republic of venice can have strategies oportunjes there as well. It's going to be very interesting and strategically point of the map for varieties of reasons .. merchants , battles tactics close to down greece that are not a lot of place to hold a clever tactic method etc.. I truly believe kythira should be added as well I hope to try do a fast research about it and is a shame that this island is not a province yet although is represented clearly to map .
Best regards dionisis , sorry for my bad English I tried to be as understandable as I could to be
Best regards dionisis , sorry for my bad English I tried to be as understandable as I could to be
Last edited:
Actually from maps I have seen covering the expansion of frankish territory you can clearly see that the original frankish territory of Austrasia has always been past the eastern part of the rhine and further south even into Franconia.
And the rhine wasn't as much an obstacle for the romans or the tribes as they crossed it quite regularly, just like the Hadrian wall it made immigration more streamlined because certain bridges would be the main point of crossing.
I'd say it should, if only for the fact that when Hardraade conquers England and then his heir loses the election Cornwall will be vassal of Norway. It might fall under the upcoming exclave rules tho, if so then it's probably fine as it is
Thessaloniki was more like the New York of the empire, it was the largest city and richest in the empire outside Constantinople however political power outside Constantinople would be the cities of Nicaea and Antioch. Though with Nicean Byzantium it grew in political power due to being one of the few places in Greece not ravaged by the crusaders and was actually larger then Constantinople at the time. I agree with your suggestion though. Greece doesn’t make sense for what it covers now.
Trebizond wasn’t an Armeniac theme and was mostly populated by Roman Greeks unlike themes Iberia and Mesopotamia. Also ingame Trebizond and cappadocia are Greek culture then Turkish all game. Why have a Armenian empire/ name when theirs no Armenians in it or ever controlled by an Armenian state.
In 1204 will Byzantium still be Byzantium? or a unique titular empire of Nicaea like with the new random fourth crusades aftermath Greek states.
@Snow Crystal sorry to be nagging but,after all, it's in the thread title... Is there any chance of a sneak peek of the Croatia de jure duchy map? I'm eager to see how it looks after the new provinces got added.
Yoh guys, all this talk of expanding Africa and all that, but we haven't heard a word about adding in "Religious Syncretism" as a mechanic for certain religions like African Paganism or Tengrism or even Hinduism.
Especially given the fact that Mali was famous for mixing African Paganistic traditions with Islamic Society, maintaining their own culture and traditions while having the benefits of Islamic Scholars and Bureaucracy.
What are we gonna do about that, cause I feel like "Religious Syncretism" could give further depth to Paganism with all these possible combos.
Especially given the fact that Mali was famous for mixing African Paganistic traditions with Islamic Society, maintaining their own culture and traditions while having the benefits of Islamic Scholars and Bureaucracy.
What are we gonna do about that, cause I feel like "Religious Syncretism" could give further depth to Paganism with all these possible combos.
I suspect that it won't be split on succession unless you use some very severe settings since Norway's holdings in northern Scotland seem to be well within 1000 naval distance units, so having England be the de jure liege would be great for that reason (assuming there haven't been any behind-the-scenes changes to which title gets land outside of any title that renders the issue moot).
I still say that "Cosmopolitan" covers syncreticism well. It's pretty much described as "lol everyone worships in their own way, and sometimes we have the same spirits under different names". So sounds a lot like the go-to for "our faith is cool with other faiths, and sometimes adopts their pantheon/beliefs into our own".
- Status