Hildebrand the Monk was hardly coming from a wealthy family, still he was probably one of the most power hungry Popes in history.
I hope to play as Henry IV and get his head on a pike
-
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.
I hope to play as Henry IV and get his head on a pike
geez Martinus. Making up for your lack of posts in the thread all at once?
I think the whole issue of people being offended by any bad representation of the church is simply absurd. No where does this imply the catholic church is evil; quite the contrary - a major part of this game seems to be defending and expanding the control of the catholic church and fighting for the true faith.
But with any large organization that controls a mass of wealth and during the era which it held considerable political power it would be almost ridiculous to think there was no corruption.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
I think the whole issue of people being offended by any bad representation of the church is simply absurd. No where does this imply the catholic church is evil; quite the contrary - a major part of this game seems to be defending and expanding the control of the catholic church and fighting for the true faith.
But with any large organization that controls a mass of wealth and during the era which it held considerable political power it would be almost ridiculous to think there was no corruption.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
From what I have read the HRE and the Popes he helped were both against corruption in the beginning of the 11th century, both of them supported celibacy and things like that.
Well...
First, I am Catholic, in a country 100% Catholic (well, let's make that 99%) and I am not offended at ALL by the fact that nobles can and will try to manipulate cardinal's elections, church policies and papal elections.
Thiis using money, political influence or sheer blackmail. This was happening all the time during the middle ages.
A major event in the time of CK is the move of the papal see to Avignon (and it was by the sheer will of the French King, which took revenge on Bonifacius VIII, Benedictus Gaetani, the last pope who really made a bid for universal power... and paid the price), which caused the Avignon Schism later (the playing dinasties should express their support of one pope or the other...).
The popes of the X and XI century, except for some quiet periods (as the reign of Albericus in Rome) were not only corrupt... but some of them were openly murderers, rapers (the son of Albericus, of the Teofilatus dinasty, John/Octavianus, used to rape nuns and peregrines in the Lateran palace... and he was not the only one...) and criminals, barely better than bandit-nobles.
The time of crusader kings would have to pressent the Pope as an evolution from the maximum prize of a Roman family, to a european wide influence. Kings opened accounts with some banker families, during election times, to pay incredible amounts to Cardinals, in order to ensure their votes. During the XI century, the maximum contenders would be the everpresent roman families, the Colonna and the Orsini... but their influence would slowly wan as the kings of Europe would notice the elections as a good way to put an Ally or a Pawn in the seat of maximum ethical, religious and moral power.
Curiously enough, this did NOT affect the church's credibility. As some pointed out, the corruption and rotness were mainly at the higher levels... some of the cardinals were without a doubt the richest men in Europe and they had courts that rivalled or bettered some of the kings. But, until the apparition of the printing press and the renaissence humanistic ideals this facts were overly unknown, ignored... or shared. As late as the end of the end of the XV century, Cesar Borgia, the pope's son, murdered a man, and that man requested his murderer's father absolution before dying.
And it must be said that neither the murdered, the murderer or the father's murderer saw any irony or contradiction in it.
So, CK, without influence over popes and cardinals, would be a rather poor depiction of the reality of the dinastic policies during that time, as it was integral (and very important!) part of it. All families ensured to have bishops, cardinals, and, if possible the same pope as members of their families.
If this function would be implemented I would like to point the fact that at the beggining italian dinasties (specially the roman ones) should have a HUGE greater influence over papal election than the rest.
First, I am Catholic, in a country 100% Catholic (well, let's make that 99%) and I am not offended at ALL by the fact that nobles can and will try to manipulate cardinal's elections, church policies and papal elections.
Thiis using money, political influence or sheer blackmail. This was happening all the time during the middle ages.
A major event in the time of CK is the move of the papal see to Avignon (and it was by the sheer will of the French King, which took revenge on Bonifacius VIII, Benedictus Gaetani, the last pope who really made a bid for universal power... and paid the price), which caused the Avignon Schism later (the playing dinasties should express their support of one pope or the other...).
The popes of the X and XI century, except for some quiet periods (as the reign of Albericus in Rome) were not only corrupt... but some of them were openly murderers, rapers (the son of Albericus, of the Teofilatus dinasty, John/Octavianus, used to rape nuns and peregrines in the Lateran palace... and he was not the only one...) and criminals, barely better than bandit-nobles.
The time of crusader kings would have to pressent the Pope as an evolution from the maximum prize of a Roman family, to a european wide influence. Kings opened accounts with some banker families, during election times, to pay incredible amounts to Cardinals, in order to ensure their votes. During the XI century, the maximum contenders would be the everpresent roman families, the Colonna and the Orsini... but their influence would slowly wan as the kings of Europe would notice the elections as a good way to put an Ally or a Pawn in the seat of maximum ethical, religious and moral power.
Curiously enough, this did NOT affect the church's credibility. As some pointed out, the corruption and rotness were mainly at the higher levels... some of the cardinals were without a doubt the richest men in Europe and they had courts that rivalled or bettered some of the kings. But, until the apparition of the printing press and the renaissence humanistic ideals this facts were overly unknown, ignored... or shared. As late as the end of the end of the XV century, Cesar Borgia, the pope's son, murdered a man, and that man requested his murderer's father absolution before dying.
And it must be said that neither the murdered, the murderer or the father's murderer saw any irony or contradiction in it.
So, CK, without influence over popes and cardinals, would be a rather poor depiction of the reality of the dinastic policies during that time, as it was integral (and very important!) part of it. All families ensured to have bishops, cardinals, and, if possible the same pope as members of their families.
If this function would be implemented I would like to point the fact that at the beggining italian dinasties (specially the roman ones) should have a HUGE greater influence over papal election than the rest.
Papal Power: The donation of Constantine
During the VIII-IX century, a skillful bureaucrat of the papal administration forged a supposed historical document that was known as 'The Donation of Constantine'. In that document it was depicted how Constantine, not only had released spiritual power to the current Pope, but he had also given imperial power to him. It was later known that this document was only created originally to get some privileges to the papal public officials, that got senatorial-rank privileges.
But the implications of this document, when it was accepted as true, were earth-shattering. That meant that the emperor was only so because of the will of the pope. The first consequence was to argument the complete divorce, in the legal sense of the catholicism with the Orthodoxy. The second consequence appeared the day of Christmas of the year 800, when the pope, in exchange for militar help, crowned Carolus Magnus the emperor (thus creating the HRE).
During the next centuries, the power to elect emperors was held by the tribal german leaders, but could only be confirmed by the pope. An emperor's tittle even valid and just as the one held by Otto the Great (the emperor who gave the decisive victory against the huns) had no choice but to descend to Rome to be crowned, in order to consider his tittle legitimate. And the one crowning him was just a 18-20 years old (yes, the one who like to rape young nuns).
This incoherence made for the constant struggle between papal and imperial powers in all these centuries. At some points the imperial crown was just an empty tittle, handed by the pope to whichever dinasty he saw politically advantegous, in the heat of the moment.
During the VIII-IX century, a skillful bureaucrat of the papal administration forged a supposed historical document that was known as 'The Donation of Constantine'. In that document it was depicted how Constantine, not only had released spiritual power to the current Pope, but he had also given imperial power to him. It was later known that this document was only created originally to get some privileges to the papal public officials, that got senatorial-rank privileges.
But the implications of this document, when it was accepted as true, were earth-shattering. That meant that the emperor was only so because of the will of the pope. The first consequence was to argument the complete divorce, in the legal sense of the catholicism with the Orthodoxy. The second consequence appeared the day of Christmas of the year 800, when the pope, in exchange for militar help, crowned Carolus Magnus the emperor (thus creating the HRE).
During the next centuries, the power to elect emperors was held by the tribal german leaders, but could only be confirmed by the pope. An emperor's tittle even valid and just as the one held by Otto the Great (the emperor who gave the decisive victory against the huns) had no choice but to descend to Rome to be crowned, in order to consider his tittle legitimate. And the one crowning him was just a 18-20 years old (yes, the one who like to rape young nuns).
This incoherence made for the constant struggle between papal and imperial powers in all these centuries. At some points the imperial crown was just an empty tittle, handed by the pope to whichever dinasty he saw politically advantegous, in the heat of the moment.
As I a Catholic, I would want the hierarchy portrayed in an accurate light, as any Catholic knows that even those who occupy the Chair of St. Peter are flawed. No Catholic denies that there has been corruption in the Church, there has been corruption past and present.
Onslaught, I do not understand how a game such as this would be wrong for a Catholic to play? Any Catholic who would think so would seem to be uncatholic. After all it is a game where you attempt to further the Faith.
Onslaught, I do not understand how a game such as this would be wrong for a Catholic to play? Any Catholic who would think so would seem to be uncatholic. After all it is a game where you attempt to further the Faith.
This, and the later scandal with three popes after the Council of Pisa, is one of the things I really look forward to see in the game...
As Lucias Sulla says, the playing Houses should express support for one or another pope (how does your subjects/vassals react if you choose one they see as the antipope? Will the Schism increase chances of heretic uprisings in your lands?) This should also give you CB against rulers/nobles who have aligned themselves differently.
One thing I do hope to see, is that controlling the Papacy must (gamewise) be REALLY hard and only doable by the most powerful dynasties.
Also, in addition to bribes and spreading the faith by sword and deeds, which other ways can you increase your reputation with the church (and win over cardinals)?
Is it possible to cede of your Demesne lands to the church? Or can you increase the Church's jurisdiction/Canon law in your lands?
From what I have read the only way to further the faith is to conquer pagans/Muslims/etc. Don't think you will be able to "influence" the Pope to make internal reforms. Could be nice, but I doubt it will be in the game.
Originally posted by Sonny
From what I have read the only way to further the faith is to conquer pagans/Muslims/etc. Don't think you will be able to "influence" the Pope to make internal reforms. Could be nice, but I doubt it will be in the game.
I think that I could live with that. The Cathedral City of Mecca has a certain ring to it.
Alexandre
On controlling the papacy
The papacy was indeed controlled by several dinasties during the middle ages by several dinasties. But, the means of influencing it, the array of families who could possibly influence it and the consequences for influencing it evolved during the different periods the papacy went through.
We can affirm safely that the Teofilatus family had a very firm grip at the papal see during the period from circa 900 to the year 1048. That control was tirannical and absolute. The seat was kept warm with suitable low profile popes, with some noticeable exceptions, caused by the occasional outburst of that unruled conjunt of mobs that was Rome at those turbulent days.
The last pope of the family, Benedictus IX (who was elected when he was around 20-25 years old) showed so low qualities (he arrived to the point that he actually SOLD the papacy) that at the end of a very troubled reign he got expelled. We could say that it was the start of the decline of the time where the swords of a local faction could decide the election of the pope.
That period would die out completely at the election of Benedicto Gaetani (Bonifacius VIII, one of the greatest jurists and lawyers the world has seen... but actually a simoniac, power greedy pope). His defeat at his bid of universal power met with reality as he faced the wrath of the French king and was humiliated at the attack of the Colonna (a family he had defeated and looted only to enlarge the Gaetani family coffers)... an attack paid and directed from France. After that, the popes by the sheer influence and power of the French crown, moved to Avignon, and it could be said that they acted as the King of France's personal chapel.
So, in the period from 1048 to 1303, the attempts of influence should be directly proportional to the proximity of the dinasty trying to influence them. The closest to Rome the dinasty should have its quarters, the more probable their "strong arms" could influence the mobs in Rome. That kind of influence would slowly decrease with time. The power of money should slowly increase, though. Gold will slowly outweigh steel.
This first period was marked by the abundance of popes of the two most ferocious roman families, the Colonna and the Orsini.
The next period would be from 1303 to 1376. At that time, as I mentioned the papacy see was in Avignon, not in Rome, although the papal lands were still the traditional territories around Rome.
Gregorius VII (after a failed attempt by Urbanus V) managed to move back to Rome. But died shortly afterwards. The personality of his successor (whose only real flaws were nepotism... and an extremely wrathful personality, lacking the lust of riches, the thirst for women and the hunger for power, his predecessors had), and the dubious circumstances of his election (he was not even cardinal, and it was suggested that he had been only elected by the council of the cardinals, because of the fact he was italian... under pressure of the angry mobs just out of the election chambers), provoked the schism.
The main factions during this 'french' period of the papacy would have been the 'french' and the 'lemousin', detailing the zones of influence of this two groups, northern-central and southwestern France. The dinasties living in this places, and of course, the current French royal family, aided by money, would be the deciding factor of the elections of this tiem.
The third period would be the time of the Schism. The influences, facts and problems in this time, that would go from 1376 (Urbanus troubled election) to the council of Constanza in 1415, and it was only the sheer influence of the kings and major families of europe, disgusted by the divisions brought up by the schism that made it possible for the papacy to reunite, with the election of Martinus V (the starting pope at EU2, I think).
The shiftings of alliances, the alignations and everything else, made depicting the possible influences of the ruling european dinasties, over the papacies worth of a complete different whole article.
From there, money ruled. Nearly absolutely. Only the influence of the most powerful kings in Europe could somehow compensate it... mildly. Nearly all popes or the kings supporting them bought literally the elections, until the struggle in the XVI century between Carlos I of Spain (Karl V, emperor of the HRE) and François I of France. The conflict between this monarch marked a change in the whole spectre of european politics, and thus of those sorrounding the pope.
But, limiting us to the years from 1415 to the end of crusader kings, we could say that money would be the nearly only factor deciding a papal election.
(I hope this will help a bit... but if anybody feels that this, or a part of this, is inaccurate I would thank any advice... My objective is to help a degree by which the papacy could be influenced across the years of the game).
The papacy was indeed controlled by several dinasties during the middle ages by several dinasties. But, the means of influencing it, the array of families who could possibly influence it and the consequences for influencing it evolved during the different periods the papacy went through.
We can affirm safely that the Teofilatus family had a very firm grip at the papal see during the period from circa 900 to the year 1048. That control was tirannical and absolute. The seat was kept warm with suitable low profile popes, with some noticeable exceptions, caused by the occasional outburst of that unruled conjunt of mobs that was Rome at those turbulent days.
The last pope of the family, Benedictus IX (who was elected when he was around 20-25 years old) showed so low qualities (he arrived to the point that he actually SOLD the papacy) that at the end of a very troubled reign he got expelled. We could say that it was the start of the decline of the time where the swords of a local faction could decide the election of the pope.
That period would die out completely at the election of Benedicto Gaetani (Bonifacius VIII, one of the greatest jurists and lawyers the world has seen... but actually a simoniac, power greedy pope). His defeat at his bid of universal power met with reality as he faced the wrath of the French king and was humiliated at the attack of the Colonna (a family he had defeated and looted only to enlarge the Gaetani family coffers)... an attack paid and directed from France. After that, the popes by the sheer influence and power of the French crown, moved to Avignon, and it could be said that they acted as the King of France's personal chapel.
So, in the period from 1048 to 1303, the attempts of influence should be directly proportional to the proximity of the dinasty trying to influence them. The closest to Rome the dinasty should have its quarters, the more probable their "strong arms" could influence the mobs in Rome. That kind of influence would slowly decrease with time. The power of money should slowly increase, though. Gold will slowly outweigh steel.
This first period was marked by the abundance of popes of the two most ferocious roman families, the Colonna and the Orsini.
The next period would be from 1303 to 1376. At that time, as I mentioned the papacy see was in Avignon, not in Rome, although the papal lands were still the traditional territories around Rome.
Gregorius VII (after a failed attempt by Urbanus V) managed to move back to Rome. But died shortly afterwards. The personality of his successor (whose only real flaws were nepotism... and an extremely wrathful personality, lacking the lust of riches, the thirst for women and the hunger for power, his predecessors had), and the dubious circumstances of his election (he was not even cardinal, and it was suggested that he had been only elected by the council of the cardinals, because of the fact he was italian... under pressure of the angry mobs just out of the election chambers), provoked the schism.
The main factions during this 'french' period of the papacy would have been the 'french' and the 'lemousin', detailing the zones of influence of this two groups, northern-central and southwestern France. The dinasties living in this places, and of course, the current French royal family, aided by money, would be the deciding factor of the elections of this tiem.
The third period would be the time of the Schism. The influences, facts and problems in this time, that would go from 1376 (Urbanus troubled election) to the council of Constanza in 1415, and it was only the sheer influence of the kings and major families of europe, disgusted by the divisions brought up by the schism that made it possible for the papacy to reunite, with the election of Martinus V (the starting pope at EU2, I think).
The shiftings of alliances, the alignations and everything else, made depicting the possible influences of the ruling european dinasties, over the papacies worth of a complete different whole article.
From there, money ruled. Nearly absolutely. Only the influence of the most powerful kings in Europe could somehow compensate it... mildly. Nearly all popes or the kings supporting them bought literally the elections, until the struggle in the XVI century between Carlos I of Spain (Karl V, emperor of the HRE) and François I of France. The conflict between this monarch marked a change in the whole spectre of european politics, and thus of those sorrounding the pope.
But, limiting us to the years from 1415 to the end of crusader kings, we could say that money would be the nearly only factor deciding a papal election.
(I hope this will help a bit... but if anybody feels that this, or a part of this, is inaccurate I would thank any advice... My objective is to help a degree by which the papacy could be influenced across the years of the game).
This cracked me up! And things like this is why I love reading/learning history, actual history always beats imagination/fantasy everytime when it comes to the 'weird' departement...As Martinus said, tks for your good and wellinformed posts Lucius, a very good read!
It seemed that he was not a bad chap after all... an unwilling pawn trapped in the game of blood his family had been playing for the control of the papacy.
His reasons for wanting to sell the papacy were quite reasonable. He never wanted to be pope, his family forced into it... he just wanted to marry and be a 'normal' noble.
But, of course, he was not too ready to forsake the fabulous river of gold that originated in all Europe and discharged in Rome, so he would offer the papacy to the best payer. And, in fact, his decision for the buyer was not bad, since it was his spiritual father, a good natured man that only wanted to renew the papacy. Of course, starting such a renewal with such a heinous simoniac act... well... even himself was forced to admit he was wrong later.
The problem with Benedictus was that he was a famed coward. He fled Rome several times, at the minimum sign of trouble...
His reasons for wanting to sell the papacy were quite reasonable. He never wanted to be pope, his family forced into it... he just wanted to marry and be a 'normal' noble.
But, of course, he was not too ready to forsake the fabulous river of gold that originated in all Europe and discharged in Rome, so he would offer the papacy to the best payer. And, in fact, his decision for the buyer was not bad, since it was his spiritual father, a good natured man that only wanted to renew the papacy. Of course, starting such a renewal with such a heinous simoniac act... well... even himself was forced to admit he was wrong later.
The problem with Benedictus was that he was a famed coward. He fled Rome several times, at the minimum sign of trouble...