What are we defining as an empire here? There isn't really a set definition. The word has different meanings in different parts of the world.
- 3
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.
Just to clarify the my perspective on the matter as to avoid misunderstanding - I'm not saying Persian, Egyptian or Arabian Empires couldn't come into existence during the period. I am saying they didn't. I'm not saying that If persians or egyptyans manage to recover lost territories and push muslims out and establish some semblance of unity they couldn't form an empire, or if calipthate stabilizes itself and deals with non belivers in it's lands it couldn't become DeJure. My point is DeJure shouldn't be given to either 3 or any other fledgling empire for free.
Empire in this discussion is just a name for a political entity large enough to encompass multiple kingdoms.
- 1
I'm not playing this game (=.Ok, so "empire" defined through "kingdoms". What's "kingdom"?
But he's right. I mean, what is a kingdom? What's the difference between a big kingdom and an empire?
In game it's mechanics. IRL its about prestige, A Spanish emperor was mentioned here, reality is - there is no clear cut definitions. We can talk about administrative forms all day long and yet please remember the discussion is about the Jurisdictions not about who or what we call an empire. Caliphate at the CM start is a great example of a tituar empire. Essencially a powerful king declaring himself emperor and trying to cement this status via force of arms and authority of church.
But he's right. I mean, what is a kingdom? What's the difference between a big kingdom and an empire?
I think that the REAL problem here are the semantics and definitions themselves.
Obviously the words "kingdom", "empire", "duchy" or whatever, can mean pretty much anything. Their meaning ultimately comes down to the context.
So, in an idealized Crusader King game I would have no title tiers. Everything would just be defined by the relationships between realms - who is whose subject. And the titles like "kingdom", "empire" and "duchy" would just be flavor localization just like "petty kingdom" or "high chiefdom" or "jarldom" are. To make these titles more flavorful, one could attach additional mechanics or event to them.
Here is a hypothetical example: a Count Italia somehow vassalises the ERE, but would still be named Count. ERE would not really like to be a subject of a Count and would have very bad opinion of the count. To remedy that a little, that Count takes a decision to upgrade his Count title into Duchy. That would require a Council like process of approval from nearby same-religion, same-culture rulers. Give out bribes. Humiliate naysayers in humiliation war. Commission an ultra expensive crown or sword to prove that you are not a poor-ass count. Basically, the Count has to get aknowledged as a Duke by other realms. Once he becomes a Duke, ERE would not be that angry. Afterall, an Emperor being a vassal of Duke is way better than being a vassal of a count. Then the newly coronated Duke could start the process of becoming a King. That would probably require aknowledgement from other kings and the Pope. After he is coronated he might take upon the task of becoming a proper emperor. But since in Christian world, there is only one Emperor, becoming an Empire would be more tricky. So, for that newly coronated King to become an Emperor, he would need to usurp the title of Emperor from HRE. First, he would set himself up as the Anti-Emperor. This would, of course, bring upon him the wrath of the current Emperor of HRE and his supporters. But if he can make it clear as sky to the Christian World, that he is more deserving of the title, then he becomes the Emperor.
That would work differently for no Christian Realm. For example, Norse may not even have Emperor title. Instead Norse would have "High Jarldom" or "King of Kings" title. If a pagan Norse Earl wants to elevate himself into Jarl, he would have to take a decision that costs a lot of prestige and gold and would give "Depose Warlord" CB to all nearby pagans. When in christian world, once you get aknowledged as King, your King status is pretty secure. However, in a pagan Norse realm, the title "King" would be safe for only the king's lifetime. At low Tribal Organization/Centralization, the King title would be destroyed at succession and all the sons would become independent. However, the King title was not entirely in vain. With the destruction of the Kingdom title, a de jure area is formed on the lands, where it previously existed. The new generation would now have a much easier time recreating that kingdom. Also, increasing the Tribal Organization/Centralization, would make that title more permanent.
And different religion and culture might have even more differing coronation processes.
Well, these are my two cents on the whole isse.
Obviously the words "kingdom", "empire", "duchy" or whatever, can mean pretty much anything. Their meaning ultimately comes down to the context.
So, in an idealized Crusader King game I would have no title tiers. Everything would just be defined by the relationships between realms - who is whose subject. And the titles like "kingdom", "empire" and "duchy" would just be flavor localization just like "petty kingdom" or "high chiefdom" or "jarldom" are. To make these titles more flavorful, one could attach additional mechanics or event to them.
Here is a hypothetical example: a Count Italia somehow vassalises the ERE, but would still be named Count. ERE would not really like to be a subject of a Count and would have very bad opinion of the count. To remedy that a little, that Count takes a decision to upgrade his Count title into Duchy. That would require a Council like process of approval from nearby same-religion, same-culture rulers. Give out bribes. Humiliate naysayers in humiliation war. Commission an ultra expensive crown or sword to prove that you are not a poor-ass count. Basically, the Count has to get aknowledged as a Duke by other realms. Once he becomes a Duke, ERE would not be that angry. Afterall, an Emperor being a vassal of Duke is way better than being a vassal of a count. Then the newly coronated Duke could start the process of becoming a King. That would probably require aknowledgement from other kings and the Pope. After he is coronated he might take upon the task of becoming a proper emperor. But since in Christian world, there is only one Emperor, becoming an Empire would be more tricky. So, for that newly coronated King to become an Emperor, he would need to usurp the title of Emperor from HRE. First, he would set himself up as the Anti-Emperor. This would, of course, bring upon him the wrath of the current Emperor of HRE and his supporters. But if he can make it clear as sky to the Christian World, that he is more deserving of the title, then he becomes the Emperor.
That would work differently for no Christian Realm. For example, Norse may not even have Emperor title. Instead Norse would have "High Jarldom" or "King of Kings" title. If a pagan Norse Earl wants to elevate himself into Jarl, he would have to take a decision that costs a lot of prestige and gold and would give "Depose Warlord" CB to all nearby pagans. When in christian world, once you get aknowledged as King, your King status is pretty secure. However, in a pagan Norse realm, the title "King" would be safe for only the king's lifetime. At low Tribal Organization/Centralization, the King title would be destroyed at succession and all the sons would become independent. However, the King title was not entirely in vain. With the destruction of the Kingdom title, a de jure area is formed on the lands, where it previously existed. The new generation would now have a much easier time recreating that kingdom. Also, increasing the Tribal Organization/Centralization, would make that title more permanent.
And different religion and culture might have even more differing coronation processes.
Well, these are my two cents on the whole isse.
Last edited:
- 9
- 1
Problem is your system calls for too many controversities. Too many optional rules, with all kinds of 'ifs' and 'buts', to create a ruleset for a system where was not really some kind of hard ruleset in reallity (AFAIK).
Going back to the original topic, I think the only accurate representation of the northernmost part of Scandinavia is no representation. That is, to not have the territory as provinces at all, just a "desert". And yes, impassable to armies, because the whole scenario of a Viking Age army marching through the northern part of Scandinavia to cross from Sweden to Finland is preposterous; never would have happened.
But if it has to be in the game as provinces, then they should probably all be one-holding provinces (not just Finnmark) and sure, have them as a fictional Kingdom of Sápmi I guess. Don't see a big problem with it. It's also convenient to a player who creates a Scandinavian Empire, because it makes a lot of sense (to me at least) to have all that crappy northern territory under one king.
But if it has to be in the game as provinces, then they should probably all be one-holding provinces (not just Finnmark) and sure, have them as a fictional Kingdom of Sápmi I guess. Don't see a big problem with it. It's also convenient to a player who creates a Scandinavian Empire, because it makes a lot of sense (to me at least) to have all that crappy northern territory under one king.
- 1
I agree with this. And besides if you have the one shitty son you don't like just give him the Kingdom of Sapmi as an insulting gift.
- 1
Poland was also a HRE vassal before it was elevated to a kingdom - said elevation was also what validated their independence.
EDIT: Not exactly before being a kingdom - the baptism of Poland was partially under German support (followed the marriage of the duke to a Bohemian princess) and at one point they required(the wikipedia page seems to imply it) the support of the Kaiser in founding an archbishopric, which was apparently a big deal.
Last edited:
- 2
Actually that's wrong, there have been kingdoms to hold that area at least in the sagas, Hålogaland at it's greatest extent encompassed northern norway and what is now the kingdom of sapmi. I'm not sure anyone bothered to tell the Sami though.
Also it could be another case of tributary as vassal, for an example Ivar Vidfamne supposedly ruled a third of europe, while modern historians say that if Vidfamne even existed it's probably better read as that he extracted tribute from the places the sagas said he conquered. In this case, the king of Hålogaland probably made some Sami tribe pay him tribute at some point and then claimed to be the overlord of their entire people but still it's not entirely correct to represent it as wasteland.
Oh yeah I had forgotten about that.
It's been argued so many times in seriousness that I kinda missed the jokingness.
Barbarossa didn't actually install a leader in Poland. The sons of Wladyslaw the Exile regained their father's hereditary lands in Silesia, but Boleslaw the Curly remained as the supreme Prince of Poland. At most, this seems like a compromise.
Also, if installing rulers on foreign thrones counts as vassalization, then Poland of Boleslaw the Brave and Boleslaw the Bold had Kievan Rus' and Hungary as vassals. Heck, even the game doesn't count equal installing claimants with vassalizing them, except in limited number of circumstances.
- 1
It all nice that you disagree with me but I have given you a source take it or leave it. Also you don't appear to have read most of my last post. These things are not binary.
So what? According to you if the Empire broke it wasn't an Empire. And Charlemagne's eventually broke to gavelkind.
In real life empires were destroyed by gavelkind all the time. Saying "it broke, so it wasn't an empire" because in this game empires can't break is ridiculous.
- 3
You must be playing a different game than I am, because I almost always see Sweden, Denmark, and Norway in my games at some point (unless I'm playing in the immediate area and block their formation myself). I agree that they almost never form an empire, but I think that's because the 3 kingdoms are too evenly balanced most of the time, and none of them can get the upper hand over the other two.
As to the complaint in the OP, I believe that the real problem is the requirement that every county must belong to a de jure duchy, and every duchy must belong to a de jure kingdom and a de jure empire. It wouldn't be anywhere near correct to show northern Scandinavia being a de jure part of either Sweden or Norway at the start of the game, so if it's not part of one of them, it has to be part of some hypothetical kingdom (hypothetical being a better term in this context than fictional IMO). There are places where this is much more of a problem than in Scandinavia IMO. For example, Venice. It's shown as a de jure part of the ERE, which makes little sense, but leads to it usually being incorporated into the Byzantine Empire fairly quickly. But given the game's mechanics, the only other options would be to show it as a de jure part of Italy (more logical than being part of Byzantium, but even more likely to see it conquered quickly) or as a 1-county empire.