Conquering the Pope and the Never-Ending cycle of white peace.

[Nocchi575]

This is true for the main game as well, but I play CK2+ mostly so I'm posting it here.

If and when you conquer the Pope as anything on a lower tier than Emperor, and if you don't vassalize him as an Emperor, he will consistently declare war on you every time his truce with you is up even though he is landless. He has no troops and if he hires mercenaries and you beat them you can only white peace him.

My proposal is that if you control the bishopric of Rome as an Emperor, you should be able to crown an antipope as the official pope, and if you're a king or lower, the Pope shouldn't be able to attack you unless he gets support from a landed character to do so.

 

[vukica]

Do you know which CB is he using?

 

[Nocchi575]

My game crashed last time it happened but if I recall it wasn't a claim war, as he didn't have a claim on Rome. (I burnt the last pope at the stake after taking the papal states over with a claim war)

 

[vukica]

I guess I'll test it out myself then.

I remember it happening a while ago, but I probably had bigger fish to fry (I think it was about the same time of RIP dlc when we had an ugly CTD).

 

[pcuser1584789]

This is true for the main game as well, but I play CK2+ mostly so I'm posting it here.

If and when you conquer the Pope as anything on a lower tier than Emperor, and if you don't vassalize him as an Emperor, he will consistently declare war on you every time his truce with you is up even though he is landless. He has no troops and if he hires mercenaries and you beat them you can only white peace him.

My proposal is that if you control the bishopric of Rome as an Emperor, you should be able to crown an antipope as the official pope, and if you're a king or lower, the Pope shouldn't be able to attack you unless he gets support from a landed character to do so.

that would be ridiculous

popes are elected by the church... you have to be a bishop and then get elected to be the "bishop of rome"

a king cant crown anyone pope... that would be nonsense

 

[Caracal le Scribopolite]

But you can crown an antipope, that's the same thing.

 

[SchmittLenin]

But you can crown an antipope, that's the same thing.

Not completely; A king/emperor crowning an antipope is about a ruler helping the rightful (Or not, depending on who is supported by the most cardinals) bishop of Rome on the throne. Its kind of like the difference between the de-jure claim of your vassal and pressing the claim of a claimant : It ends up the same way (The person you want to have a certain title gain said title) but the process is slightly different

 

[Aerkhanite]

popes are elected by the church... you have to be a bishop and then get elected to be the "bishop of rome"

Because corruption is non-existent and Papal/Church positions being bought/usurped have no historical basis, surely.
Nothing stopping a monarch from crowning his own bishop as the Patriarch of the West. Considering the Western Schism happened, it's not too far fetched.

 

[Whizzer]

I recall reading something similar to this in the recently revealed patch notes, so it could be a vanilla issue. But I could be wrong.

 

[SchmittLenin]

Because corruption is non-existent and Papal/Church positions being bought/usurped have no historical basis, surely.
Nothing stopping a monarch from crowning his own bishop as the Patriarch of the West. Considering the Western Schism happened, it's not too far fetched.

We're not saying it didn't happen; Just that it was not the legal/right way to do it

 

[Seimour]

that would be ridiculous

popes are elected by the church... you have to be a bishop and then get elected to be the "bishop of rome"

a king cant crown anyone pope... that would be nonsense

Philippe le Bel did just that and so did his succesors. The avignon papacy? Maybe you should make sure before you say things like that.....