Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Yet another partition gripe

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings III 17945 Console 209 Suggestions 5240 Bug Report 2444 Tech Support 1990 User Mods 1726 Multiplayer 148 AARs (After Action Reports) MP Open Beta Feedback 27
Atleast Partition doles out lands instead of jobs... there's a book series (Beggar, Thief, Warrior, and King, if you want to read them in game or on an Elder Scrolls Wiki) in Elder Scrolls 5 Skyrim, where the eldest child got the land, the next oldest got the army, the third got the treasury, and the last child got nothing.
Opanashc said:
The kid was promised A, B and C, then daddy decided to give A and C to the firstborn, so the kid rebels to get it back. Sound like the norm?
Click to expand...
Didn't that happen because William the Conqueror kept giving John his brothers' castles?
 
Blackwhitecavias said:
This would be horrible for bordergore though, let's imagine a situation with Duchies A and B, counties A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, B2, B3, B4 and sons S1, S2 and S3
This would lead to a division where S1 gets A and A1 in the first round, S2 gets B and B1 and S3 gets A2. After repeating this we end up with the following split:
-S1 gets A, A1, A3 and B3.
-S2 gets B, B1, A4 and B4.
-S3 gets A2 and B2.
This would be horrible for bordergore as they would hold lands all over the place. It would also give a big advantage to people inheriting duchies in which you hold only one county (if B2, B3 and B4 were held by others this would lead to a split where S2 gets both his own duchy and a county in A).
Click to expand...
But the way I understand it now is
S1 Gets A and A1
S2 gets B, B1, B2, B3, and B4
S3 gets A2, A3, and A4
 
Opanashc said:
Actually, they were the norm, for the time period specified. Read up on history, and see how many sons rebelled against their fathers, because they were not set to inherit a "fair" portion of their father's domain.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was only the norm in certain parts of Western Europe, not all of Europe and not all of the world. The first Umayyad ruler Abd al-Rahman chose as his only heir is son Hisham, the middle child. He other sons got nothing and would rebel against their brother. The first Umayyad Caliph in Iberia, Abd al-Rahman III, was the grandson of Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-Umawa. Abdullah ibn Muhammad had Abd ad-Rahman's father murdered shortly before he was born, one of several of Abdullah ibn Muhammad's sons that he had killed.

Quoting the wiki article on Haraldr Fairhair.
He has also suggested that the legend of Harald Fairhair developed in the twelfth century to enable Norwegian kings, who were then promoting the idea of primogeniture over the older custom of agnatic succession, to claim that their ancestors had had a right to Norway by lineal descent from the country's supposed first king.[27]
Click to expand...
To me "older custom" suggests a couple of centuries, long before you would be able to unlock it in the game.

And if you look up partible succession as related to monarchary on Wiki only the Franks and English are mentioned.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Blackwhitecavias said:
I believe S1 does actually gets A3 as he is still included in later rounds. This is in my opinion a good division as it is the fairest distribution where each child gets titles that are sort of close together.
Click to expand...
doesn't matter if S1 gets A3 as well, because (assuming that the AI is smart, and that may be a bit generous) S2, with the power of duchy B and the claims on Duchy A, will immediately conquer duchy A.
 
Opanashc said:
The kid was promised A, B and C, then daddy decided to give A and C to the firstborn, so the kid rebels to get it back. Sound like the norm?
Click to expand...
That the "ruler" did not care about some preset succession laws and ignored his own "promises" ... yes, sounds like the norm.

Point being, the problem is not the law itself, even though it existed just in some parts and not "in the world".
And the parition only "fired" when no heir and inheritance was set. So when the ruler did nothing, upon his dead the law saw a split. But that did not happen so often, rules faced two problems:
1) when the realm splits into (ie) 3... the realm becomes weaker, with 3 different realms... they wanted to prevent that
2) when the ruler says who gets what, it COULD sause a strife between all his sons... therefore they tried to educate their children in the "family first and bond" way, to prevent that
 
I would like to add to the discussion that just allowing brothers to rebel is not an option in the current game as they have no levies, men at arms or income to support such a rebellion with so unless they already got some lands during the reign of the previous ruler (which would satisfy their inheritance need) they would not be able to rebel in any way.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Opanashc said:
My point exactly.
Click to expand...
You are kind of missing the point. Muslim rulers didn't partition in the time period. The Abbasids or the Umayyads didn't practice it and just gave everything to one heir. You said it was common practice at the time and I was pointing that it wasn't for the Umayyads and the only reason why Hashim's brothers rebelled was because they thought they should have been the Sultan, not that they owed something they weren't given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back