Why can't i chose my heir as Byzantium?

  • 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.

Radu2605

Second Lieutenant
16 Badges
Aug 2, 2020
121
98
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
Byantium wasn't a monarchy, it was an military dictatorship.The Emperor of Constantinopole could chose his heir and succesor, then that heir should be approved by the senate(for good faith).
Event tho the senate had no political power, it's purpose was administrative and diplomatic. Because Byzantium wasn't a feudal nation, therefore it didn't have kings, dukes, counts and barons under the emperor. The provinces would be governed by a bureaucratic governor and a separate military governor(untill the 7-8 century) and later would be governed by an doux(who governed a province, but still had similar rights to a governor). Also is was legal for the senate/emperor replace any governor/doux.
In conclusion Byzantium wasn't a feudal monarch, it was an bureaucratic, republican military autocracy.
 
  • 8
  • 5Like
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Byantium wasn't a monarchy, it was an military dictatorship.The Emperor of Constantinopole could chose his heir and succesor, then that heir should be approved by the senate(for good faith).
Event tho the senate had no political power, it's purpose was administrative and diplomatic. Because Byzantium wasn't a feudal nation, therefore it didn't have kings, dukes, counts and barons under the emperor. The provinces would be governed by a bureaucratic governor and a separate military governor(untill the 7-8 century) and later would be governed by an doux(who governed a province, but still had similar rights to a governor). Also is was legal for the senate/emperor replace any governor/doux.
In conclusion Byzantium wasn't a feudal monarch, it was an bureaucratic, republican military autocracy.

The game just came out. While CK2 didn't do it perfectly either, you could argue in CK2, that the vassals were the governors, since the titles went back to the ruler of the Byzantium Empire upon death of that vassal, and you could hand it out to whoever you wanted next.

You could play CK2 to get a much more realistic (though not at the same time) gameplay of the Byzantine Empire, otherwise you'll have to wait untli the DLC comes out that changes it.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Byantium wasn't a monarchy, it was an military dictatorship.The Emperor of Constantinopole could chose his heir and succesor, then that heir should be approved by the senate(for good faith).
Event tho the senate had no political power, it's purpose was administrative and diplomatic. Because Byzantium wasn't a feudal nation, therefore it didn't have kings, dukes, counts and barons under the emperor. The provinces would be governed by a bureaucratic governor and a separate military governor(untill the 7-8 century) and later would be governed by an doux(who governed a province, but still had similar rights to a governor). Also is was legal for the senate/emperor replace any governor/doux.
In conclusion Byzantium wasn't a feudal monarch, it was an bureaucratic, republican military autocracy.

There's a lot of ahistorical things in CKIII, we'll have to wait until Paradox releases some DLCs to fix it, like they always do. Mods are your best friends in these type of things
 
  • 4
Reactions:
You can choose your heir, of your sons anyway. You just have to do this thingy called "absolute crown authority" first.
I know i can chose my heir from my sons. But Byzantine/Roman succesion wasn't based on dynasties. The Emperor could adopt as his son anyone he belived to be competent enough to rule.
The Roman/Byzantine imperial authority didn't come from divine right the emperors right to rule was enforced by the senate and by the army.
Being the biological son of the emperor wouldn't give you a claim on the empire, because the succesion didn't need to be decided by blood.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The game just came out. While CK2 didn't do it perfectly either, you could argue in CK2, that the vassals were the governors, since the titles went back to the ruler of the Byzantium Empire upon death of that vassal, and you could hand it out to whoever you wanted next.

You could play CK2 to get a much more realistic (though not at the same time) gameplay of the Byzantine Empire, otherwise you'll have to wait untli the DLC comes out that changes it.
I realy hope that Byzantium won't be as underdeveloped in CK3 as in CK2.
And i hope they add diffrent governments to CK3, that change the way vassals, factions and succesion works.
 
  • 8Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
There's a lot of ahistorical things in CKIII, we'll have to wait until Paradox releases some DLCs to fix it, like they always do. Mods are your best friends in these type of things
The reason i play paradox games is because of the huge modding community, and i hope the mods or CK3 will be great.
But it still is sad when you need mods to fix broken game mechanics or to improve the AI in a game that will cost 200 euros in like 5 years
 
  • 7
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I realy hope that Byzantium won't be as underdeveloped in CK3 as in CK2.
And i hope they add diffrent governments to CK3, that change the way vassals, factions and succesion works.

Byzantines in Ck2 did have their own special government type, but I do hope they add more to it, with more interesting interplay.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Paradox haven't really done much to represent the Byzantines at all in any of the games - Their representation in CK3 is not much better than CK1. Modders, on the other hand, have made some very good attempts at it, which makes it even more frustrating, especially considering the inevitable DLC we will have to pay for.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
especially considering the inevitable DLC we will have to pay for.
You can rest safely, my friend - despite intense lobbying, the government has so far refused to pass laws requiring game owners to purchase upcoming DLCs. ;)

Jokes aside, you don't have to pay for any DLCs. If a DLC implements mechanics you think are better than what mods offer, then buy it. If you think the mods are equal or superior to Paradox's DLCs, then stay with the mods and don't buy the DLCs. You'll have a game you enjoy more and you will save money, which sounds like a good deal to me. :)
 
  • 6
  • 5Like
  • 4Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
The ERE Empire starts with primogeniture. Adding heir selection and viceroyalties would make it overpowered. CK2 had a special government for the ERE, but it was buggy.
 
Didn't only 867 start with primo. I seem to recall 1066 Byz starting with Gavelkind
I realy don't get why the most organized and centralized empire of the ancient and medieval era would have a succesion law that splits the betwen the emperor's son's.
Is there a mod that changes that?
There is no gavelkind in CK3, you're thinking of partition.

And no, the Byzantine Empire in 1066 does not start with partition. It starts with primogeniture. :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The game just came out. While CK2 didn't do it perfectly either, you could argue in CK2, that the vassals were the governors, since the titles went back to the ruler of the Byzantium Empire upon death of that vassal, and you could hand it out to whoever you wanted next.
Stop using this excuse, this game was in development for many years, apparently since 2016. Apparently, they used 80% of their resources on graphics, because this game offers little innovation in gameplay.
 
  • 14
  • 12Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I agree in principle that there should be ways for alternative succession schemes in Byzantium. But it stands to mention that I do not know about a case in which an emperor 'appointed' anybody other than his first son as his heir. The Romans/Byzantines were not that different from the rest of the Medieval World, they saw primogeniture as a fairly natural way for selecting their rulers.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I realy don't get why the most organized and centralized empire of the ancient and medieval era would have a succesion law that splits the betwen the emperor's son's.
Is there a mod that changes that?
There is a very good mod that changes a lot of things about the ERE, succession and adoption included. Even adds a senate, although everything is still a WIP and still being balanced out

It's called, Rhomaioi - Continued, and is currently updated to the latest version of the game. I'd check it out, it makes the ERE a lot more playable.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2331933105
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Being able to appoint your own, chosen, non-dynastic heir would be something they might be able to do, but it'd result in you losing the title and reverting to your dynastic heir (whoever that might be based on succession for other titles you hold).

In short, you wouldn't tend to be emperor for more than one generation.


Now, which *in period* Emperors adopted a non-dynastic heir over their own bloodline?
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I agree in principle that there should be ways for alternative succession schemes in Byzantium. But it stands to mention that I do not know about a case in which an emperor 'appointed' anybody other than his first son as his heir. The Romans/Byzantines were not that different from the rest of the Medieval World, they saw primogeniture as a fairly natural way for selecting their rulers.

Manuel I was named heir in preference to his elder brother Isaac.
 
I agree in principle that there should be ways for alternative succession schemes in Byzantium. But it stands to mention that I do not know about a case in which an emperor 'appointed' anybody other than his first son as his heir. The Romans/Byzantines were not that different from the rest of the Medieval World, they saw primogeniture as a fairly natural way for selecting their rulers.
Just a few examples:










As well as the aforementioned Manuel I Komnenos. Another example I could cite was Constantine XI, who was regarded as John VIII’s heir even when his elder brothers were still alive.