Build-Your-Own Duchies and Kingdoms

[Radiohead]

I would like to see a system where duchies and kingdoms weren't predetermined, and you could form new duchies and kingdoms of your choice so long as you had under your control the minimum number of provinces (not already part of a duchy or a kingdom, depending on which you were trying to form).

Rather than having a required set of specific counties, if you controlled enough counties (say minimum 3 max 6?) that were not already part of a duchy, that you could then create a duchy from those counties - so long as they meet certain criteria (population 50%+1 of a certain ethnic group, and at least 66% of the counties comprising the duchy bordering one another, and the remaining within 1 county away, etc.)

This would allow duchies to be formed dis-contiguous (but not all over the map) - similar to how many formed in history, with one main section and an outlying section - and would encourage the formation of duchies along ethnic lines, which seems realistic to me. The duchies could be named after one of the territories that comprise the duchy (the capital?), therefore you wouldn't always be stuck with the same old names either.

New kingdoms could be formed with similar rules, with maybe a minimum of 20 provinces and no maximum, and perhaps a smaller ethnicity threshold.

You would of course be able to choose which territories you want to include in which duchies and which the capital would be, as long as the chosen duchies met the prescribed rules, making them almost entirely player driven.

Thoughts? Everyone confused?

 

[the_legion]

No,
I cannot imagine any example in history where someone
in the medieval period said "I am King of TakaTukaland now".
You can even today see most counties in western europe are
shaped after the duchies in the medieval period.

Maybe you can say that for pagan slavic/muslim provinces that are
conquered but for example the duchies in the holy land are defined
by the roman empire provinces.

Maybe I change my mind after you tell me some examples from IRL-history but it feels kind of "wrong" for me atm.

 

[Radiohead]

No,
I cannot imagine any example in history where someone
in the medieval period said "I am King of TakaTukaland now".
You can even today see most counties in western europe are
shaped after the duchies in the medieval period.

Maybe you can say that for pagan slavic/muslim provinces that are
conquered but for example the duchies in the holy land are defined
by the roman empire provinces.

Maybe I change my mind after you tell me some examples from IRL-history but it feels kind of "wrong" for me atm.

I think you missed the part about the creations having to remain along ethnic lines.

Are you saying a Duke who controlled the vast number of provinces with a population that was in large part Polish, could not proclaim himself king of Poland? That's exactly how the game works now, except this system allows kingdoms to form in a more fluid manner along ethnic lines.

Similarly a count that holds a large demesne of several counties should be able to buy himself a duke title (exactly how CK1 worked in that respect), except now those counties don't have to be a certain number of specific counties, but simply along ethnic lines again. Similarly, in CK1, a duke can often hold a county outside of his pre-described duchy - this system would simply allow him to add that territory to his duchy so that it can be considered an integral part.

This doesn't change the game per se, but adds a realistic amount of fluidity.

I'm not suggesting an idea where a thousand duchies will be created that never existed before, but one where existing duchies can shift over time as a family acquires or loses possessions, and would allow the creation of a few new ones - especially like you mentioned in conquered pagan areas, etc.

I don't see anything wrong with a bit of fluidity rather than being forced to keep duchies that existed from 1066 until the end of the game without change.

 

[Doctor Zoviet]

So you're just saying that you don't need to control the exact provinces that make up a kingdom, just the people?

 

[the_legion]

That's exactly the problem.
The German Kings ruled as "King of the Romans", The Kingdom of Italy doesn't include all italians. And Kingdoms like Burgundy where not ethnic-based, too.
Even the Kingdom of France was not legitimate by french people living there but by beeing the Western-Frankish-Kingdom.

Kingdoms needed:
- Some sort of religious justification (eg. Hungarian Kingdom given by the pope)
- Some sort of roman justification (eg. beeing a roman province)
- Some bible-historic justification (eg. Kingdom of Jerusalem)

The relation "people --> Kingdoms" is not a medieval thought.

 

[esbenmf]

There was a Danish, Norwegian and a Swedish Kingdom in the middle ages, those weren't neither:

- Given by the pope (or other religious entities).
- Former Roman provinces.
- Certainly not mentioned in the Bible.

So there are clear justifications for having other Kingdoms, but not just random ones.

Esben

 

[Hellvink]

That's exactly the problem.
The German Kings ruled as "King of the Romans", The Kingdom of Italy doesn't include all italians. And Kingdoms like Burgundy where not ethnic-based, too.
Even the Kingdom of France was not legitimate by french people living there but by beeing the Western-Frankish-Kingdom.

Kingdoms needed:
- Some sort of religious justification (eg. Hungarian Kingdom given by the pope)
- Some sort of roman justification (eg. beeing a roman province)
- Some bible-historic justification (eg. Kingdom of Jerusalem)

The relation "people --> Kingdoms" is not a medieval thought.

Indeed, but who's to say that certain things evolved like they did?
For instance, there's the 'County of Holland' which roughly spans the provinces of Zuid and North Holland as of today. This was a part of LOwer Lorraine in CK, which is everything BUT historical. In 1066, the earliest starting date, they were most likely vassals to the bishop of Utrecht. Which is a ruler of the same tier in CK-rules.
Who's to say that this landmass, with proper justification, like for instance the Counts of Leuven inventing the 'Duke of Brabant' title, could not reform itself into a duchy? It really isn't that clear cut.

I agree with you that there should be no 'Kings of Taktukiland', BUT I also agree with the OP that there could be given some lee-way in the creation of Duchies. Like provinces in a certain area not belonging to a duchy either be given the choice to join an existing duchy or, when united under one ruler, blob together and be binded into a duchy of their own.
Like Brabant.
Or Bar.
Or AUSTRIA.

I forecast a sort of 'SOI-system'-esque thingamajig for CK2 regarding these things. HOI3 had one. V2 had one. CK2 will most likely also have one.

 

[unmerged(205556)]

Along those lines, I think it will go one of two ways:

Like in CK1, you will have the option to create the kingdom once you own enough provinces. It would be cool if you had to have enough piety (or relations with the Papal States). I can't recall if states or people had relationship values since piety is quite a different thing.

The other way I can think of is if they come up with some system for creating your own duchies or kingdoms but I haven't the first idea of how they'd do this without the map ending up being very strange. The system overall was not an arbitrary one, but at times it could be when politics dictated it was needed.

 

[Radiohead]

So you're just saying that you don't need to control the exact provinces that make up a kingdom, just the people?

In a way,

I would say you need to control a large enough demesne (including vassals) of which who's populations make up a certain percentage of ethnic group, to make a kingdom.

Similar rule for Duchy I would say. You could also do it along cultural/religious lines, and I wouldn't say the ruler had to be of the same ethnic group as the kingdom/duchy their forming (though I'm sure it would happen that way often).

 

[the_legion]

There was a Danish, Norwegian and a Swedish Kingdom in the middle ages, those weren't neither:

- Given by the pope (or other religious entities).
- Former Roman provinces.
- Certainly not mentioned in the Bible.

So there are clear justifications for having other Kingdoms, but not just random ones.

Esben

Denmark became an independent christian Kingdom after they where no longer under the Bishop of Hamburg in 940 when Bishop-duchies (!?) where founded. If the Bishop of Hamburg or the Pope would have said "no" there wouldn't be any Kingdom of Denmark at all.

The reasons are certainly to complicated to model them in a game.

So I would let it out and would add decissions for historical Kingdoms/duchies to form when the conditions are met (Papal influence, prestige ...) rather then randomize it with ethnics which haven't played any significant role.

 

[Hellvink]

So I would let it out and would add decissions for historical Kingdoms/duchies to form when the conditions are met (Papal influence, prestige ...) rather then randomize it with ethnics which haven't played any significant role.

Half-heartidly agreed, though all those things (being a former roman province, having papal approval etc.) are not worth shit without a powerbase. While a province should not be formed on ethnic lines alone (should they? you mentioned prestige as a good justification and I'd like you to explain how that works if not on ethnic lines) they certainly need justification from this aswell. In other words, you need to warm up the people to the idea, not per se of the same culture but they still not to approve or your claim won't be worth shit.

 

[Achim Detjen]

Denmark became an independent christian Kingdom after they where no longer under the Bishop of Hamburg in 940 when Bishop-duchies (!?) where founded. If the Bishop of Hamburg or the Pope would have said "no" there wouldn't be any Kingdom of Denmark at all.

I might have misunderstood, but it looks like you're saying the Bishop of Hamburg actually had a say in the secular affairs of the Danes in 940...

 

[nwinther]

Denmark became an independent christian Kingdom after they where no longer under the Bishop of Hamburg in 940 when Bishop-duchies (!?) where founded. If the Bishop of Hamburg or the Pope would have said "no" there wouldn't be any Kingdom of Denmark at all.

The reasons are certainly to complicated to model them in a game.

So I would let it out and would add decissions for historical Kingdoms/duchies to form when the conditions are met (Papal influence, prestige ...) rather then randomize it with ethnics which haven't played any significant role.

Eh? Denmark became christian around 960. But it existed as a kingdom long before that.

The reason it became (nominally) christian is probably to remain independent from the Franks. Sweden and Norway were also kingdoms before they became christian.

 

[thames]

Eh? Denmark became christian around 960. But it existed as a kingdom long before that.

The reason it became (nominally) christian is probably to remain independent from the Franks. Sweden and Norway were also kingdoms before they became christian.

Yep.
Official "saga"-date for the end of the making of Norway into one kingdom (from the earlier, numerous, "small" kingdoms"), is AD 872. Modern research has put that back to ca. 920, give or take...

The official year Norway became christian, is AD 995, though it took decades or perhaps centuries to make it all christian....

 

[the_legion]

I might have misunderstood, but it looks like you're saying the Bishop of Hamburg actually had a say in the secular affairs of the Danes in 940...

PRE-940 he was the only one who had a say.
There where no danish bishops previous to that date.

 

[Achim Detjen]

PRE-940 he was the only one who had a say.
There where no danish bishops previous to that date.

I think you might be confusing SECULAR with ECCLESIASTIC...
Google is your friend.

 

[the_legion]

I think you might be confusing SECULAR with ECCLESIASTIC...
Google is your friend.

Sry, my english is just to bad.

A King wasn't just a secular title anyway, so he wouldn't be recognised
because secularization is a few hundret years to early for CK...

 

[Duke of Bavaria]

No,
I cannot imagine any example in history where someone
in the medieval period said "I am King of TakaTukaland now".
You can even today see most counties in western europe are
shaped after the duchies in the medieval period.

Maybe you can say that for pagan slavic/muslim provinces that are
conquered but for example the duchies in the holy land are defined
by the roman empire provinces.

Maybe I change my mind after you tell me some examples from IRL-history but it feels kind of "wrong" for me atm.

Also the spanish Kingdoms like Castille, Leon , Aragon seem to have been created rather randomly, inventing a Spanish Empire that stemmed from the Roman one even to justify this Kingdom spam.

Well the Bavarian dukes like Tassilo III always tried to create a Bavarian Kingdom independent from Charlemagne. Also even if it snot in the time frame, the Kingdom of Prussia was created out of nowhere, Prussia had no tradition as Kingdom worthy entity at all, and was known through must of history as a place where some uneducated heathens lived.

Also what about the creation of Lotharingia and other parts of the Charlemagne heir, like east-west Franks, werent they considered independent Kingdoms too with no historical background whatsoever.

I would totally like to see to be able to create new Kingdoms, it should be hard though , requiring massive prestige and giving every ruler that has the Kingdom title ofer a province you add to your Kingdom a CB and very bad relations with him. You should also need an allowance by the pope to make your Kingdom legitimate.

 

[Achim Detjen]

Sry, my english is just to bad.

A King wasn't just a secular title anyway, so he wouldn't be recognised
because secularization is a few hundret years to early for CK...

You know, you could still be King of Denmark even if the Bishop of Bremen didn't acknowledge you as such. I think your perception of the formalities and the practicalities surrounding Kingship might be somewhat faulty. You should ask an historian on the subject.

 

[Achim Detjen]

Prussia had no tradition as Kingdom worthy entity at all, and was known through must of history as a place where some uneducated heathens lived.

But it did, sort of. It's not a long step from Duchy to Kingdom, particularly when you don't need the Whore of Rome... I mean, the Pope's approval, Prussia being protestant when it was created a kingdom.