Vassal declares war on another kingdom claiming throne. Wins and takes his domains with him. Bug?

[Battlex]

My vassal has declared a war against a neighboring kingdom claiming their throne. He won the war becoming the new king of that kingdom and taking his existing domains with him (which were a part of my kingdom). Is this some sort of a bug?

You have claims from them going independent, as well as de jure claims, working perfectly normal

 

[Battlex]

It's strange gameplay wise, but yeah, there are instances of similar situations happening IRL.

People mention William the Conqueror several times here and its similarity to this situation. Several, also rightfully point out unlike in the the game, the Normans IRL don't get to shake free from their feudal obligations just because they also snagged England.

However, I don't think implementing something as complicated as having multiple top-level lieges is the solution here other than confusing the shit out of people. I think these situations are already reflected sufficiently in the De Jure title laws, that even though the Dukes of Normandy were also the Kings of England, the Dukedom of Normandy are still de jure vassals of the French Kingdom.

Sure, it doesn't reflect the exact (and very muddy) situation IRL, but I think it's the best approximation without introducing complexity that doesn't enhance gameplay.

I'm not sure though, that every scenario should result in what the OP experienced though. William being able to conquer England and still hold onto his continental possessions, were very much due to the relative weakness of the French Kings. It's worth remembering that the Norman vassal, even before their conquest of England, held significant influence in France and has, on multiple occasions, went head-to-head with the French Kings or interfered in royal succession only to come out ahead. France was, after all, incredibly decentralized at this point.

In a situation where the ruler had more centralized power and relatively more power, it's hard to argue that it would always result in the William the Conqueror situation.

And in game a strong French king could then fight to reclaim Normandy whilst William was busy putting Hardrada to flight

 

[x4077]

Works 100% as intended.
See the conquest of England by Duke Wilhelm of Normandy as an example

1) Revoke his titles.
2) Become an emperor -- it's rare that vassals will compete for an Emperor title

You can also:
3) Kill the vassal holding the claim to invalidate the war
4) Declare war against the same foe for any reason, it will invalidate the vassals war

 

[gamerk2]

My vassal has declared a war against a neighboring kingdom claiming their throne. He won the war becoming the new king of that kingdom and taking his existing domains with him (which were a part of my kingdom). Is this some sort of a bug?

This is intended by game design. The way the game works is if a Vassal becomes the same tier as their Liege (in this case, King), then they can no longer be their Liege's Vassal. When this occurs, they may or may not take their current holdings with them based on the level of Crown Authority (I think? I'm a bit unclear on this part).

 

[Ivashanko]

Yet in a war between the king of England and the king of France Normandy would side with England meaning that it in a only-1-liege situation (which is in ck2 and ck3) it would belong to England.

That is a massive simplification of what is a complex situation.

 

[Blackwhitecavias]

That is a massive simplification of what is a complex situation.

Just saying that with the mechanics we have in the game (only 1 liege per vassal) this is the right course of action.

I'd also say that a system with multiple lieges would be confusing more than it would improve historical gameplay.

 

[Ivashanko]

Just saying that with the mechanics we have in the game (only 1 liege per vassal) this is the right course of action.

I'd also say that a system with multiple lieges would be confusing more than it would improve historical gameplay.

I agree with your first point completely, though I only partly agree with your second point. I believe it can be done, and that it can be explained to the players. I'm more worried about how the AI would handle it.

 

[Khelder]

I think you have a misconception of feudalism that anachronistically draws from modern conceptions of the nation state. It is not 'your' land, or 'France's' land, it is your vassals land, and they simply offer you gold and levies in return for protection. Since they've won control of a neighboring kingdom, they no longer require your protection--why would you continue to benefit from their land, when you no longer uphold your end of the feudal contract?

Normandy was considered part of the Kingdom of France, just like Brandenburg was considered part of the HRE after its leader also became King in Prussia and countless other examples. Feudalism is a little more complicated than what you described.

The kingdom, and all its land, in feudalism is the property of the ruler. The land of the vassals is given in a way similar to landlord renting a property, and originates from the lack of money the eraly medieval rulers had which led to a situation where they had to give land to "warlords" in exchange of them bringing themselves and their hosts to the army of the king when called upon.
Put simply, King had land but not army nor money to pay for one, so King rents land to those who can offer him troops. This led to the situation where the vassal pays portion of the taxes(the rent) and offers their host to the kingdoms military efforts for the right to maintain their troops through the fruits of the land they rent, also including the excess revenue they can generate from their serfs.

Ofcourse the longer feudalism went on the more formal it became and after it was established it turned out the rental/feudal agreements weren´t that easy to annul as they were based on the military power of the vassal, as this was a time before the state and the state monopoly on violence.
And feudalism over all is a simplification of the varied and different systems of land ownership around the Medieval Europe.

Isn't retaking the lands of a former vassal who ended up conquering a kingdom and taking their lands with them basically the entire origin of the 100 years war?

Edit: As already noted by YuriiH - apologies, somehow I skipped that post reading through the thread.

I didn´t notice a reply on this, but the origin of 100 year war was the claim on the throne of France that the english king had, so it wasn´t about retaking the lands of the vassal, but about claiming the throne of France.

 

[louie97]

The repeated mentions of William make me wonder, whenever the kings of England held significant land in France they actually provide troops to the king of France or was it just a lip service thing?

 

[Khelder]

Post-norman conquest of England is a period in French history I know very little of apart from the notion that the kings of France seemed to regard their english vassal as a threat especially after they gained about half of France as inheritance, also known as Angevin empire, which led to conflict escalating in the French conquest of Normandy and many other holdings in 1202-1204 and 1213-1214 when they lost the rest apart from Gascony. Before that the king of England was also known as the strongest man in France and as far as I know they often kept court at their continental holdings. Ofcourse they at least paid lip service, but I am not sure if they did anything more than that, apart from most likely paying their taxes as per the feudal contracts.

So what I know is that the French saw their english vassal as a threat after they rose in power following the conquest of England.

 

[Skales]

It's strange gameplay wise, but yeah, there are instances of similar situations happening IRL.

People mention William the Conqueror several times here and its similarity to this situation. Several, also rightfully point out unlike in the the game, the Normans IRL don't get to shake free from their feudal obligations just because they also snagged England.

However, I don't think implementing something as complicated as having multiple top-level lieges is the solution here other than confusing the shit out of people. I think these situations are already reflected sufficiently in the De Jure title laws, that even though the Dukes of Normandy were also the Kings of England, the Dukedom of Normandy are still de jure vassals of the French Kingdom.

Sure, it doesn't reflect the exact (and very muddy) situation IRL, but I think it's the best approximation without introducing complexity that doesn't enhance gameplay.

I'm not sure though, that every scenario should result in what the OP experienced though. William being able to conquer England and still hold onto his continental possessions, were very much due to the relative weakness of the French Kings. It's worth remembering that the Norman vassal, even before their conquest of England, held significant influence in France and has, on multiple occasions, went head-to-head with the French Kings or interfered in royal succession only to come out ahead. France was, after all, incredibly decentralized at this point.

In a situation where the ruler had more centralized power and relatively more power, it's hard to argue that it would always result in the William the Conqueror situation.

In many cases, it went nowhere near as bad. Normandy was a special example because they were already highly autonomous.

 

[grzegorz444]

In many cases, it went nowhere near as bad. Normandy was a special example because they were already highly autonomous.

I think there are many examples wheres nobels hold lands in to kingdoms and they serve two lords(France-HRE Poland/Mazovia - Teutonic Order). In France we have another to expamples o kings holds land there: Charles d. Anjou, King of Sicily, cout of Anjou(and duke of Provance - HRE vassal) and Charles the Bad, king of Navarre and count of Evreux

And there is gray zone beetween highly autonomous and let's say direct rule, even Rome not rule all his land directly in some periods, for example Judea and Herod & sons

 

[Battlex]

The repeated mentions of William make me wonder, whenever the kings of England held significant land in France they actually provide troops to the king of France or was it just a lip service thing?

Richard lionheart did send aid

The kingdom, and all its land, in feudalism is the property of the ruler. The land of the vassals is given in a way similar to landlord renting a property, and originates from the lack of money the eraly medieval rulers had which led to a situation where they had to give land to "warlords" in exchange of them bringing themselves and their hosts to the army of the king when called upon.
Put simply, King had land but not army nor money to pay for one, so King rents land to those who can offer him troops. This led to the situation where the vassal pays portion of the taxes(the rent) and offers their host to the kingdoms military efforts for the right to maintain their troops through the fruits of the land they rent, also including the excess revenue they can generate from their serfs.

Ofcourse the longer feudalism went on the more formal it became and after it was established it turned out the rental/feudal agreements weren´t that easy to annul as they were based on the military power of the vassal, as this was a time before the state and the state monopoly on violence.
And feudalism over all is a simplification of the varied and different systems of land ownership around the Medieval Europe.



I didn´t notice a reply on this, but the origin of 100 year war was the claim on the throne of France that the english king had, so it wasn´t about retaking the lands of the vassal, but about claiming the throne of France.

100YW was about both claiming the throne and expanding via lands previously claimed. The claim to the throne was dropped in peace treaties of 2 of the 3 phases but then remade