Why can't we create wills?
- Thread starter napoleon_mayo
- 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.
"Don't think you read the post, or you misunderstood it."
Hmm perhaps. Then explain how I should understand
"All of those are invented by historians and are post-history classifications."?
I disagree that the concepts are post-history classifications, since they clearly was in use at the time.
"Rarely were there family names as in "name not connected to residence", but those also existed."
Depends on the culture. Even today on Iceland they use patronyms and last names are rare, in Denmark last names was only widely adopted in the 19th century. But that did not exclude the fact that we have a bunch of medieval noble family names, which have nothing to do with residence. Most noble families in the late period had a last name all over Europe. True sometimes that was a name referring to a place (though not in Denmark), but this place was not always the residence (anymore). In the ealy days we still have "dynasties" such as the Knytlings or Ynglings, which i already by the 12/13th century thought to have special traits etc.
"At no point did it hppen that people went "oh no, he is not a member of my dynasty""
That most certainly did happen. Preserving you "dynastys" rightfull claim for the throne is of major importance to your hole family. Open up for outsiders and your own claim is reduced in value.
"Anyone who says "it worked like this" and refer to the entire Europe for the full time-span of the middle ages is either misinformed or grossly oversimpliyfying (which usually goes for most topics)."
I agree with this part; this is why I think you are oversimplifying by saying "all those are invented", "rarely were there family names", and most importently "There was no such thing as a "dynasty", "house" or a "lineage"".
Hmm perhaps. Then explain how I should understand
"All of those are invented by historians and are post-history classifications."?
I disagree that the concepts are post-history classifications, since they clearly was in use at the time.
"Rarely were there family names as in "name not connected to residence", but those also existed."
Depends on the culture. Even today on Iceland they use patronyms and last names are rare, in Denmark last names was only widely adopted in the 19th century. But that did not exclude the fact that we have a bunch of medieval noble family names, which have nothing to do with residence. Most noble families in the late period had a last name all over Europe. True sometimes that was a name referring to a place (though not in Denmark), but this place was not always the residence (anymore). In the ealy days we still have "dynasties" such as the Knytlings or Ynglings, which i already by the 12/13th century thought to have special traits etc.
"At no point did it hppen that people went "oh no, he is not a member of my dynasty""
That most certainly did happen. Preserving you "dynastys" rightfull claim for the throne is of major importance to your hole family. Open up for outsiders and your own claim is reduced in value.
"Anyone who says "it worked like this" and refer to the entire Europe for the full time-span of the middle ages is either misinformed or grossly oversimpliyfying (which usually goes for most topics)."
I agree with this part; this is why I think you are oversimplifying by saying "all those are invented", "rarely were there family names", and most importently "There was no such thing as a "dynasty", "house" or a "lineage"".
- 3
- 1
Not really. Evidence suggests that the nuclear family was deeply involved in decision making. But it also depends on what type of decisions we're talking about, e.g. military, legal, customary, etc.
One military example that springs to mind is when the lord went on a Crusade to Jerusalem, acquired land and donated it to the Knights Templar. Since this contradicted the dower right where all possessions, past and future (and future), are to be shared equally between husband and wife, the wife brought this case to their lord and it was ruled in her favour - the husband disposed of her lands which was against the law. Revoking the land itself was then a tedious process.. So that's a more extreme example where there's law prohibiting the lord from acting as he wishes.
When it comes to disposing the inheritance though, it can perhaps help if you imagine that for the better part of the childs life, your inheritance was normally inaccessible to you. When you come of age, you'd get some small part of your inheritance from your parents (while the parent is still alive). Let's imagine then that your father died on a Crusade (which wasn't uncommon for the high middle ages), your mother would then take a half that inheritance. Once your mother dies, you could be well into your 40'ies. If the couple had no children, you'd typically have a widow ruling that land until she dies (looking at some succession lines, you'll notice prolonged female regencies and ruling as widow where the women rules for the majority of the total time that the title existed). Anyhow, a way to allow the children access the inheritance is to allow them to "co-rule" it. Those children might at that point also have their own families and land in a location which wasn't necessarily in conjuction to their parents'. I.e. your grand-children's future are tied to that land and the parent of that child would have reason to influence the decision.
But then it's also the simple fact that the father didn't necessarily have a reason to not hear their children. The entire family depended on the land, and those who stood to inherit had as much stake in it. Like for example where the family as a whole takes the decision that's it's simply better if the seasoned uncle rules, than the male child who is still young. That said, I can't say if there were actual laws to prevent the lord from ignoring his family members, or in which cases that was, as I don't have my books at the moment to find such example. It is possible that this was also the case and that there may well have been areas where the father had a more absolute rule. But from what I remember, I also had the impression that sometimes it was rather the family "pushing" the father around, rather than the opposite. E.g. imagine two brothers and mother forming a "faction" against the father, but I don't have any examples to cite for that, it's just part of how I remember something I once read. Maybe someone else can fill in on that.
- 1
1. That wikipedia article is a reference in general to land tenure in the middle ages. For the sources, you will have to look for articles regarding specific local practices, such as "Gavelkind", or "Germanic law", or "germanic Kingship". Those last two are in the references, btw.
2. I'm not a medieval expert, but i think that any heir that is not the firstborn gaining titles meant a new cadet branch. The war of the roses might be the best example of that. But anyway, you do understand that the limitation here would be the game mechanics, right? I actually think yours is a good idea, i just don't see it working well with CK2 mechanics.
3. Well, that's spot on. The answer here is balance. That you cannot be a complete and utter asshole because someone might want to play as the target of your possible "assholeness" seems pretty reasonable. Besides, i think you already have many ways of dealing with that. Revoke titles that you can to incite a rebellion from the ruler which is bothering your son, plot to kill him, enforce peace, give more landed titles to your son and/or money, or imprison him altogether. Be aware though, that accruing "tyranny" from most of these actions is VERY plausible, as the decision "stop fucking around, you can't conquer this kingdom even though you have a valid claim because of reasons" is COMPLETELY arbitrary.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by dynasty. The claim to some land/title, non-residential family names or the use of patronyms? As I've already written, yes those exists (I'm having trouble understanding if you are repeating what I said in order to underscore that you agree with me, or if you still misunderstood). If you wanted to have a semantical debate about the word "dynasty", I'm not really interested. What I'm mostly referring to is when historians have gone through archives and examined the then use of the word "lineage" (et. al) and found only two occurences (!) (if memory serves me right), both of them not referring to the same thing historians usually so routinely do (which CKII sort of taps into), for the same geographic region represented by those archives. Similiar concepts to "lineage" were routinely adopted without criticism and used as model for further much more generalized statements about society. I don't have my books at the moment, on the other hand, I doubt it really matters. My response to the quite short, initial "Also cadet branches" argument is still that the dynasty concept doesn't apply everywhere as universally as it does in the game or in history, subsequently do I not think it's the most elegant solution to .. more realistic inheritance including distribution of land?
"As I've already written, yes those exists"
No, you said (a direct quote):
"All of those are invented by historians and are post-history classifications"
No, you said (a direct quote):
"All of those are invented by historians and are post-history classifications"
Sorry, but I won't repeat it a third time. If you can't see it now then I think you don't want to.
Man, gavelkind must be kind to you folks. If I have four kingdoms (or four duchies, etc) under Gavelkind, it will give the second son three of them every time! And maybe some extra counties, just to make sure my heir is as isolated and powerless as possible. Honestly, by this point I thought that was intended. You mean to tell me that gavelkind doesn't just arbitrarily hand everything over to the youngest child just to make things harder? I thought it was programmed to make certain you inherited as little as possible.
I am not being sarcastic or satirical. Literally, I cannot fathom gavelkind dividing up lands in an even-handed and sensible manner.
- 2
- 2
>why do you use these "implies" arrows, this is not 4chan
>why do you use these "implies" arrows, this is not 4chan
>why do you use these "implies" arrows, this is not 4chan
>this is not 4chan
>this is not 4chan
>not 4chan
- 2
- 2
I'm not against the general idea, but if implemented it should be set in a certain frame work. For instance each heir is entitled to at least something, depending the succession law, so it shouldn't be possible to deprive one or more heirs from a certain minimum inheritance. Under Primogeniture the previous monarch could assign counties and/or duchies to younger children, though it shouldn't be more counties than the ones passing to the Royal heir.
You kind of can choose what goes to who by landing your younger children before you die. Once you give them an amount of land the game finds fair and acceptable, they get removed from the inheritance. In this way you can more or less make sure your primary heir ends up with nice clean internal borders and such.
It's not 100% foolproof though...
It's not 100% foolproof though...