It's one of the few de jure empires I actually don't mind much that it was added but I still think a custom empire makes a bit more sense. Even if you had the land you'd still need all sorts of prestige for your claim to be took seriously.
- 1
Why did they create the Kingdom of Sápmi?
- Thread starter Shebaloso
- 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.
It's one of the few de jure empires I actually don't mind much that it was added but I still think a custom empire makes a bit more sense. Even if you had the land you'd still need all sorts of prestige for your claim to be took seriously.
Who's empire broke apart when he died, thus it's not an emperor title in game. No more than than Norton calling himself emperor of north america made him so.
The HRE had Bohemia, and if I remember correctly also Poland (though that was only defacto true for a really short time).
Well the game treats exarchates as kingdom level titles. They had the exarch of ravenna and I think africa?
- 4
But it's not too big of a stretch for a King who cuts a bloody swathe through the Andalusians to have their claim legitimized and recognized. After all, you can't actually be Emperor in-game unless you control 80% of all the counties in the Iberian peninsula.
- 1
Yeah, fair point, they actually represent fairly well what Kingdom level vassals are good for - managing large outlying territories that you don't want to handle directly.
Fair enough on Bohemia. I admit I hadn't actually been aware of the fact that it had a king under the HRE. That seems to be a legitimate example of something like the way vassal kings work in-game. The exarchates, too. Those I did know about, but slipped my mind when I posted. They're outside of the game's timeframe but I suppose if the Byzantines were to expand again they might bring the idea back.
So I guess there is justification for the idea of kings as vassals to empires. Fair enough! These examples do suggest it should be sort of a rare, special-circumstances kind of situation rather than the "natural state" of empires being that they're divided into kingdoms (which is what the de-jure system in the game kind of suggests) but that's less important.
Out of curiosity, are there any examples of kings as vassals to kings?
So I guess there is justification for the idea of kings as vassals to empires. Fair enough! These examples do suggest it should be sort of a rare, special-circumstances kind of situation rather than the "natural state" of empires being that they're divided into kingdoms (which is what the de-jure system in the game kind of suggests) but that's less important.
Out of curiosity, are there any examples of kings as vassals to kings?
- 1
Stefan Lazarević, Despot of Serbia, being a vassal to the Hungarian king, the Ottoman sultan and the Byzantine emperor?
Yeah this is where the whole petty kingdom problem comes into play - if a kingdom is a vassal to another kingdom chances are it's just a glorified dutchy.
It's a non trivial exercise to differentiate a vassal from a tributary state, in this situations, but those are definitely fitting examples.
Barbarossa established imperial hegemony over Poland (Hence why Hitler called his push east operation Barbarossa). Quite if that means that Poland was in the empire and a vassal is unclear, the emperors probably thought so. The Polish probably considered it more along the lines of paying the emperor tribute.
The Scottish kings did homage to the Kings of England from time to time.
- 1
Tributary is not a vassal, Kingdom of Poland never swore fealty to emperor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland#Piast_dynasty I don't see anything about vassalage.
Eh there was another emperor after Charlemagne, Louise the Pious. Charlemagne's one surviving son. After him the imperial crown would usually pass to the son who inherited Italy.
"During this period, Frederick decided conflicting claims to various bishoprics, asserted imperial authority over Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frede...d_Fourth_Italian_Campaigns:_1158.E2.80.931174
And actually the diffrence between tributary and vassal is not a clear one. If a tributary is not a vassal then all the ancient empires were in fact not empires, Babylon, Assyria and many of the early egyptian kingdoms, had no linking threads beside tributary agreements. The idea of law code common through and empire or a state religion are much later phenomenon. Either the later egyptian empires (Who had state religion) or Cyrus' Persia (Who had common laws) are the first real empires that is anything more than a series of tributary agreements. If Barbarossa could install a leader in Poland and extract tribute from them then he held more power over them than any king before Cyrus has outside his own city.
It's not entirely correct to speak of Poland as a vassal of the HRE during the pinnacle of Hohenstaufen power, but neither is it entirely wrong.
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
- 2
So hungary was vassal too? Still this doesn't mean anything, it is known that neither poland nor hungary respected the emperor as the liege, it's like now Angela Merkel would call herself "empress of europe", she could do that, but it doesn't mean she has any power over other countries. I think that we can end this discussion, I won't agree with you and you won't agree with me.
- 7
What I am saying is that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Or rather these things are not binary, it's a spectrum of influence. The Hohenstaufens greatly extended their influence over Poland in their early days, but were forced to abandon it to safeguard their interests in sicily and italy.
- 3
Okay, so what about the non-Christian world? A Persian empire is definitely non-Roman (and even has pre-Roman precedent), but definitely existed long enough to be a de jure empire. Arabia's the still-existing Islamic empire as started by Mohammed, as I recall. India's had one or two lasting empires within recent history of the game, with at least one kicking around as a rump state in 769.
- 4
Comprehend, if we follow this logic ERE should have jurisdiction over all of Europe. The fact that game has no mechanics for empires to drift into titular status doesn't mean it never happened IRL. Persians in the beginning of the game are under a Muslim yoke. I assure you neither Muslims nor Persians were happy with this situation and any claim to legality is nonsense. All you need to see this is load the game up, look at Abbasid blob and switch to religious map mode.
ERE Jurisdiction of it's territories is justified by cultural, ideological and political unity. HRE's by claim to Roman Titles granted by Roman Pope and, again religious and cultural unity. CME is a fun little thing because it's crown is mostly justified by "I am Awesome" declaration by the man himself. On a more serious note that was a case of dynastic and religious unity, and it, as history shows, didn't last.
I have no idea about Indian politics in that era.
I'm agree about Persian example, but don't about Arabia. Caliphates shouldn't be represented by de-jure empires, because it's essentially is a union for everybody who belong ummah, not somebody who lives in some geographical region.
Essentially "dozens of lesser noble dynasties, that rising and falling trying to create dominant state toward the region".
Also Rome had earlier vassal rulers even more powerful Odenathus started out as an exarch, but eventually held the title Rex Regum, king of kings, yet even he was a vassal of the emperor.
Like I said before Persia is often called the first empire, while Egypt may actually have predated it as a centralized state, it is from Persia, via Alexander that the west inherited it's ideas of how a centralized empire functions. Rome very much modelled itself on the enemies it fought, first the Carthaginians then the Persians.
- 1