Why did they create the Kingdom of Sápmi?

[TheDungen]

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.

I'm saying that an empire that does not survive it's founder is not much of an empire. It's just conquest, nothing of imperial institution put in place. A great example is the hellenic empire (I utterly loathe the glorification of Alexander, the man was good at winning battles I'll give him that but he didn't build anything, he just warred and murdered an usurped, I have long made the case that the classic era should begin with Cyrus and not Alexander) though the British one is a pretty good example too. Yes I find staying power to be a much better indicator of an empires power then it's size. The Egyptian, Persian and roman empires all lasted thousands of years, Alexander's empire lasted like 10, the British empire less than a hundred.
Charlamagne's empire lost it's authority, due to a combination of gavelkind and power struggles, but when Otto usurped the title the west had only stood without an emperor less than 40 years. At that point the empire had existed for 124 years (That's more than the british empire did). And from then on there was an emperor all the way to napoleon, that's almost a thousand years. Had not Otto picked the title up I might have been inclined to agree with you but he did and the holy roman empire was certainly an empire. Unlike your Norton emperors of all hispania and the north sea. Or Alexander.

Anyone can proclaim themselves emperor, actually keeping it for a meaningful portion of history is what's impressive.

 

[raistlin_wizard]

I'm saying that an empire that does not survive it's founder is not much of an empire. It's just conquest, nothing of imperial institution put in place. A great example is the hellenic empire (I utterly loathe the glorification of Alexander, the man was good at winning battles I'll give him that but he didn't build anything, he just warred and murdered an usurped, I have long made the case that the classic era should begin with Cyrus and not Alexander) though the British one is a pretty good example too. Yes I find staying power to be a much better indicator of an empires power then it's size. The Egyptian, Persian and roman empires all lasted thousands of years, Alexander's empire lasted like 10, the British empire less than a hundred.
Charlamagne's empire lost it's authority, due to a combination of gavelkind and power struggles, but when Otto usurped the title the west had only stood without an emperor less than 40 years. At that point the empire had existed for 124 years (That's more than the british empire did). And from then on there was an emperor all the way to napoleon, that's almost a thousand years. Had not Otto picked the title up I might have been inclined to agree with you but he did and the holy roman empire was certainly an empire. Unlike your Norton emperors of all hispania and the north sea. Or Alexander.

Anyone can proclaim themselves emperor, actually keeping it for a meaningful portion of history is what's impressive.

Now you're rephrasing it just enough to not let Charlemagne out. By this same example Ferdinand I of Castille self declared himself Imperator totus Hispaniae. Then his son Alfonso VI controlled all of his father territory (after gavelkind kicked in) and extended it even further (and his descendants even more). So... what now?

 

[TheDungen]

Now you're rephrasing it just enough to not let Charlemagne out. By this same example Ferdinand I of Castille self declared himself Imperator totus Hispaniae. Then his son Alfonso VI controlled all of his father territory (after gavelkind kicked in) and extended it even further (and his descendants even more). So... what now?

I haven't rephrased anything. Like I said if Otto had not picked up Charlamagne's crown then his emperorship would have come of as one of these jokes, but instead he started a line of emperor that though broken a few times lasted almost a thousand years.
And yet no one else considered either of them emperors. Like I said, they aren't all that different from Norton.

 

[Shebaloso]

I'm saying that an empire that does not survive it's founder is not much of an empire. It's just conquest, nothing of imperial institution put in place. A great example is the hellenic empire (I utterly loathe the glorification of Alexander, the man was good at winning battles I'll give him that but he didn't build anything, he just warred and murdered an usurped, I have long made the case that the classic era should begin with Cyrus and not Alexander) though the British one is a pretty good example too. Yes I find staying power to be a much better indicator of an empires power then it's size. The Egyptian, Persian and roman empires all lasted thousands of years, Alexander's empire lasted like 10, the British empire less than a hundred.
Charlamagne's empire lost it's authority, due to a combination of gavelkind and power struggles, but when Otto usurped the title the west had only stood without an emperor less than 40 years. At that point the empire had existed for 124 years (That's more than the british empire did). And from then on there was an emperor all the way to napoleon, that's almost a thousand years. Had not Otto picked the title up I might have been inclined to agree with you but he did and the holy roman empire was certainly an empire. Unlike your Norton emperors of all hispania and the north sea. Or Alexander.

Anyone can proclaim themselves emperor, actually keeping it for a meaningful portion of history is what's impressive.

See, i don't know why this post decayed into such topic, but i truly don't understand why you feel like taking ownership of the term "Empire" to assign to it your own definition.
The use of the term "Empire/Emperor" is normally observed a posteriori. It's relatively rare to see the term used contemporaneously to a political entity.

The definition of what constitutes an empire is very loose and has very little to do with whether the sovereign calls himself Emperor or not or whether it's a lasting political insitution or not. But normally it's defined as ruling over relatively large swathes of land (larger than the usual kingdoms) and a multitude of cultures. To debate over claims such as "'i'm saying that an empire that does not survive it's founder is not much of an empire" is frankly completely off the point.

Besides, going back to the subject, this is a game. There's no way to reliably implement such subtleties of politics. "I'm Franz, emperor of Austria" "But i don't recognize you as such" "Hey, it's all good, I do". What matters is that it's reasonable to say that there have been political entities larger than usual kingdoms that have had kings themselves as vassals at different points of time, so it's conceivable to generalize and implement such abstraction into the game for gameplay purposes.

 

[raistlin_wizard]

I haven't rephrased anything. Like I said if Otto had not picked up Charlamagne's crown then his emperorship would have come of as one of these jokes, but instead he started a line of emperor that though broken a few times lasted almost a thousand years.
And yet no one else considered either of them emperors. Like I said, they aren't all that different from Norton.

That's EXACTLY my point. Recognition. Charlemagne was an Emperor because he was recognized as such, and Ferdinand of Castille wasn't.

Of course you rephrased, you started by "If the empire breaks then it's not an empire", and when I mentioned Charlemagne you changed to "If the empire breaks on the first generation then it's not an empire" missing completely the key point of recognition. Now, third try. Was Napoleon's an Empire?

 

[thevmag]

If only there was some sort of abstract, like a piety cost to represent official acknowledgment in the eyes of the church or a steep prestige requirement to represent how prestigious/worthy/recognized you are in the eyes of others.

 

[Ternega]

See, i don't know why this post decayed into such topic, but i truly don't understand why you feel like taking ownership of the term "Empire" to assign to it your own definition.The use of the term "Empire/Emperor" is normally observed a posteriori. It's relatively rare to see the term used contemporaneously to a political entity.

The definition of what constitutes an empire is very loose and has very little to do with whether the sovereign calls himself Emperor or not or whether it's a lasting political insitution or not. But normally it's defined as ruling over relatively large swathes of land (larger than the usual kingdoms) and a multitude of cultures. To debate over claims such as "'i'm saying that an empire that does not survive it's founder is not much of an empire" is frankly completely off the point.

Besides, going back to the subject, this is a game. There's no way to reliably implement such subtleties of politics. "I'm Franz, emperor of Austria" "But i don't recognize you as such" "Hey, it's all good, I do". What matters is that it's reasonable to say that there have been political entities larger than usual kingdoms that have had kings themselves as vassals at different points of time, so it's conceivable to generalize and implement such abstraction into the game for gameplay purposes.

Actually, believe it or not, game does surprisingly good job, as of conclave, to represent that Medieveal states, even neighbouring ones, were far far apart. You only need to take a look at your inheritance screen to see what I'm talking about. Whilst this is an extreme oversimplification, it still serves well to show what defines your particular state. Germanic Empire led by a Fylkir will never Be the same, as say Muslim one led by a Caliph. And even within mainland Europe, one crown can be an electve monarchy where monarch is little more than a puppet of the court, whilst its glorious neighboor has everyone walking on tiptoes around the king, and everything in between. And you can never really say which one will be more prosperous with more than 50% certanty.

And as for recognition by foreign polities? Prestige is a great tape measure, and empires really should have a prestige cost to them, but outside of that, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, who cares if it calls itself a swan or a phoenix.

 

[TheDungen]

That's EXACTLY my point. Recognition. Charlemagne was an Emperor because he was recognized as such, and Ferdinand of Castille wasn't.

Of course you rephrased, you started by "If the empire breaks then it's not an empire", and when I mentioned Charlemagne you changed to "If the empire breaks on the first generation then it's not an empire" missing completely the key point of recognition. Now, third try. Was Napoleon's an Empire?

Of course not. The german reich is a bit more intresting since it's basically a claim on a previously existing imperial title. And every empire breaks so of course I always meant breaks soon after it's creation, the statement becomes utter nonsense if taken to it's absolute, as every statement. Reductio ad absurdum. I have not changed my point I may have clarified it a bit but not changed it.

See, i don't know why this post decayed into such topic, but i truly don't understand why you feel like taking ownership of the term "Empire" to assign to it your own definition.
The use of the term "Empire/Emperor" is normally observed a posteriori. It's relatively rare to see the term used contemporaneously to a political entity.

The definition of what constitutes an empire is very loose and has very little to do with whether the sovereign calls himself Emperor or not or whether it's a lasting political insitution or not. But normally it's defined as ruling over relatively large swathes of land (larger than the usual kingdoms) and a multitude of cultures. To debate over claims such as "'i'm saying that an empire that does not survive it's founder is not much of an empire" is frankly completely off the point.

Besides, going back to the subject, this is a game. There's no way to reliably implement such subtleties of politics. "I'm Franz, emperor of Austria" "But i don't recognize you as such" "Hey, it's all good, I do". What matters is that it's reasonable to say that there have been political entities larger than usual kingdoms that have had kings themselves as vassals at different points of time, so it's conceivable to generalize and implement such abstraction into the game for gameplay purposes.

Well I can agree on that, I merely hold that short lifespan is one of the things that can be used to deny a supposed empire empirehood. Of course there are also other qualifications. Otherwise several smallish states in europe that have lasted almost a thousand years would be considered empires.

 

[Marinaliteyears]

how did a topic about a made up kingdom title become the usual "what is an empire" debate/argument/thing?

Anyway, throwing my two cents in, Im fine with 'fictional' kingdoms, so long as they serve a purpose, but I cant actually say weather this one does or does not.

I do with the game had more fluidity of titles, kind of like the custom kingdom/empire thing helped with.

 

[TheDungen]

how did a topic about a made up kingdom title become the usual "what is an empire" debate/argument/thing?

Anyway, throwing my two cents in, Im fine with 'fictional' kingdoms, so long as they serve a purpose, but I cant actually say weather this one does or does not.

I do with the game had more fluidity of titles, kind of like the custom kingdom/empire thing helped with.

I have no idea, I can tell you that I didn't start it. I too as I stated in my first post support the inclusion of sapmi. Granted the "everythign must have a dejure on every level" thing is kind of annoying but better dejure sapmi than dejure sweden 300+ years before it ought to be.

 

[SBolshevik]

Let's have a kingdom of Livonia while we're at it.

 

[Mofiros2000]

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.

Please don't waste your time, it would be an endless discussion and neither you nor TheDungen will win it.

 

[TheDungen]

Please don't waste your time, it would be an endless discussion and neither you nor TheDungen will win it.

You're not doing the thread any services by baiting the resumation of another off topic topic you know.

Let's have a kingdom of Livonia while we're at it.

Yeah already modded it in. Thinking about adding a titular Prussia too. I would share but I kind of borrowed some of the stuff (More kingdoms in the byzantine empire and an empire of caucasia) from another mod and wouldn't feel comfortable passing on someone elses work.

 

[Mofiros2000]

You're not doing the thread any services by baiting the resumation of another off topic topic you know.

Honestly you got me there, I just love reading about history and other people's opinions, but try to think other way, you are not doing any service as well by arguing over Poland and HRE, you could just stop responding to this and end this, but you just have to be on the top and win this discussion, don't you? P.S. No hard feelings, I respect your knowledge and obviously respect you as a smart person, but I just wanted to point this out. I feel like it's too much spamming, it was nice talking to you yesterday and today. I think we will meet again in another topic

 

[Sunspawn]

Honestly you got me there, I just love reading about history and other people's opinions, but try to think other way, you are not doing any service as well by arguing over Poland and HRE, you could just stop responding to this and end this, but you just have to be on the top and win this discussion, don't you? P.S. No hard feelings, I respect your knowledge and obviously respect you as a smart person, but I just wanted to point this out. I feel like it's too much spamming, it was nice talking to you yesterday and today. I think we will meet again in another topic

Is this a "has to have the last word in an argument" syndrome?

 

[Fishman786]

Is this a "has to have the last word in an argument" syndrome?

Yes, but I alone have the right to the last word.

The Holy Roman Empire was part of Poland.

There, debate finished!

 

[TheDungen]

Honestly you got me there, I just love reading about history and other people's opinions, but try to think other way, you are not doing any service as well by arguing over Poland and HRE, you could just stop responding to this and end this, but you just have to be on the top and win this discussion, don't you? P.S. No hard feelings, I respect your knowledge and obviously respect you as a smart person, but I just wanted to point this out. I feel like it's too much spamming, it was nice talking to you yesterday and today. I think we will meet again in another topic

I have a talent for thinking in many directions at once, that has it's drawbacks, one is easily getting drawn into offtopic arguments. This is on of itself such an argument...
I suggest we leave it at that.

 

[Ivashanko]

It is a strange definition of 'Empire' that has the British one only lasting a hundred years.

 

[TheDungen]

It is a strange definition of 'Empire' that has the British one only lasting a hundred years.

And I'll be happy to defend it if you PM me. But this thread is about the kingdom or sapmi.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

The fundamental problem is simply being an empire gives you a ton of bonuses. The real Byzantium after 1261 was a wreck barely able to defend itself, but in-game it's an Empire with a ton of de jure territory and inherent stability and Varangian Guards and and

Meanwhile the empires of Trebizond, Bulgaria and Serbia, the last two of which regularly beat up on the faltering Byzantines....



Also, kingdoms should drift out of empires if they are not held by that empire. That's how the western kingdoms slipped from New Rome's grasp with no empire in the West to drift them, after all.

Britain was abandoned in 410, so by 510 it was outside the Empire.

Africa was conquered by the vandals in 435, so Justinian had to go to war when he did to keep it in the Empire. Fortunately he reconquered it in 534.

Egypt was lost in 642, so it's no longer de jure in 769.

Venice kind of flickered back and forth depending on how hard the Emperor looked at them, but the disaster at Manzikert in 1071 ensured Venice would be left alone, so it was outside de jure by 1171 - hence the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 showing Byzantium no longer saw Venicians as part of the Empire.