Baghdad?

[unmerged(1047)]

There were cases of designated inheritances by people who were distantly related or not related at all. In ancient Rome they "adopted" the chosen heir... there's also some arguments that the invasion of 1066 shouldn't have been necessary (except for the fact that the king of England hadn't died yet), as he had supposedly promised the inheritance to Duke William of Normandy in exchange for a loan.... the Danish invasion of the same year was also based on a royal claim based on a distant relationship, if I recall...

So even if the whole family had died out or been killed off, there was almost always an heir somewhere. Although, didn't Poland have elected kings a few times?

 

[unmerged(8915)]

the poles did indeed elect their monarchs in the sjem (correct my spelling please), but i dont think the provision commenced in the CK era - i dont think so.

the reason i brought it up is that if your bloodline dies out and another house taken the throne, will you inherit/control all the lands ruled by the new rulers.

were playing royal houses here, not kingdoms. or will the comp always generate some forgotten cousin somewhere in the world? the movie with that fat guy D) comes to mind..

 

[Earl Uhtred]

The game just misses it but the Anglo-Saxon monarchy was THEORETICALLY elective. Theoretically.

Originally posted by Ladislav
the poles did indeed elect their monarchs in the sjem (correct my spelling please), but i dont think the provision commenced in the CK era - i dont think so.

the reason i brought it up is that if your bloodline dies out and another house taken the throne, will you inherit/control all the lands ruled by the new rulers.

were playing royal houses here, not kingdoms. or will the comp always generate some forgotten cousin somewhere in the world? the movie with that fat guy D) comes to mind..

 

[Shadowstrike]

This was more common a little before the CK period, but in the Eastern Roman Empire, it was common practice for a widowed Empress to marry some well-off patrician or general who would then assume the throne. Could this be a possible way out for the player (i.e. continue his dynasty through another lineage altogether by marrying in) ? Although this probably would be pretty abused.... (bad king? kill him off, remarry.... rinse, repeat)

 

[unmerged(10591)]

This was more common a little before the CK period, but in the Eastern Roman Empire, it was common practice for a widowed Empress to marry some well-off patrician or general who would then assume the throne. Could this be a possible way out for the player (i.e. continue his dynasty through another lineage altogether by marrying in) ? Although this probably would be pretty abused.... (bad king? kill him off, remarry.... rinse, repeat)

If implicated it probably would be a exploit, but the Romans did go through alot of emperors in there day. Kind of hints to the fact that the Roman system Byzantine used wasnt exactly feudalism of Western Europe, I wonder if that will be noted.

 

[Demetrios]

In reality, that tradition was dying down by the start of the game, happing only during the game period during the gap between the Macedonians and the Komnenoi at the very start of the game. After 1081, the Byzantine throne moved in a fairly hereditary manner, pretty much as hereditarily as most western throne. During that period, only a few Emperors (Andronikos I, for example), married their predecesor's wives, and in that case it was done forcibly.

 

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by Demetrios
In reality, that tradition was dying down by the start of the game, happing only during the game period during the gap between the Macedonians and the Komnenoi at the very start of the game. After 1081, the Byzantine throne moved in a fairly hereditary manner, pretty much as hereditarily as most western throne. During that period, only a few Emperors (Andronikos I, for example), married their predecesor's wives, and in that case it was done forcibly.

Still it was a good tradition. Some of the best emperors came to power in ways like this. Still it also caused a lot of wanton destruction and set a bad presedent. Hmm perhaps it wasn´t so good after all.

 

[unmerged(8913)]

Originally posted by Idiotboy
Still it was a good tradition. Some of the best emperors came to power in ways like this. Still it also caused a lot of wanton destruction and set a bad presedent. Hmm perhaps it wasn´t so good after all.

Still, wouldn't it be interesting to have a feature in place so the player could choose to rule the Eastern Roman Empire in this manner? I can already imagine the AAR's . . .

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
It wasn't as severe during the reoccurences, though.

But Sheridan's correct that the total percentage population loss among Native Americans due to diseases was far higher than that caused by the Black Death. Ninety percent is the traditionally accepted figure, but it may have been a bit lower.

I though there is no 'traditionally accepted figure', as diseases came before conquerors, and certainly before people who might have counted natives.

On a side note- Sheridan, Europeans didn't brought Syphilis to new world. Quite the opposite, they brought it from America to Europe.

Carraibeans are special case. Spanish used natives as slaves there, and they apparently didn't endure that well, for whatever reasons.

Well, they did the same in Peru silver mines, but apparently either those Indians were had more endurance, or were too numerous to simply die out from this.

The plague stopped dropping population fairly fast after the first few years. The recurrent outbreaks simply slowed the recovery, (which took 150 years).

The recovery is outside the timeperiod, though.

What is funny, is that Europe experienced highest demographic growth ever, in CK timeperiod (barring modern times, since industrial revolution, obviously).

Even later periods, EU II one had slower growth rate, possibly XVIII century having higher, only (would have to check that one).

Which means, to get whole picture, we have to get big wealth increase in the first 3 centuries, with some dynamic model, and not concentrate only on plague-it would be better to disregard it if the first is not implemented somewhat.


And for the elected kings in Poland-it begun in 1370, when last native King died heirless.

Could happen in a country with strong nobility, meaning pretty much every European one

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
I though there is no 'traditionally accepted figure', as diseases came before conquerors, and certainly before people who might have counted natives.

Well, ninety percent is the most typical figure cited. But, obviously, with the lack of any exact numbers for either before or after the introduction of these diseases, this is just an estimation.

 

[Aetius]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
Well, ninety percent is the most typical figure cited. But, obviously, with the lack of any exact numbers for either before or after the introduction of these diseases, this is just an estimation.

The plague left Normandy with a 15th century population at 25% of it pre-plague 14th population. I would say that the European population peaked around 1300 or so, before the Great Famine.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Aetius
The plague left Normandy with a 15th century population at 25% of it pre-plague 14th population. I would say that the European population peaked around 1300 or so, before the Great Famine.

My post referred to Native American population loss from disease, not the Black Death.

 

[Aetius]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
My post referred to Native American population loss from disease, not the Black Death.

It was a comparision number

 

[Zagys]

I don't think Rome ever had over 1,000,000 people, it peaked at about 700,000. I believe Baghdad was the first city to reach 1,000,000 people.

 

[Zagys]

Originally posted by Havard
Who said Mecca isn't in?

The map doesn't go that far South.

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Zagys
The map doesn't go that far South.

Really...?

 

[unmerged(6160)]

Originally posted by Zagys
I don't think Rome ever had over 1,000,000 people, it peaked at about 700,000. I believe Baghdad was the first city to reach 1,000,000 people.

I am afraid you are wrong my friend, Alexandria and Antioch had for a while over 1 million inhabitents.
Rome it is now widly known had over 1,000,000

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Zagys
The map doesn't go that far South.

It doesn't?

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by historycaesar
I am afraid you are wrong my friend, Alexandria and Antioch had for a while over 1 million inhabitents.
Rome it is now widly known had over 1,000,000

Nope. It's not even sure that Rome ever hit 1,000,000, though it may well have (though many current estimates tend towards lower numbers and put it at 400,000 - 500,000 during the Antonines). Antioch and Alexandria certainly never did. The first city that it is absolutely certain to hit that number was London in the late 18th century.

 

[CCR_of_the_Code]

Wohoo!
Sack Mecca Sack Mecca Sack Mecca!
Wohooo!