Guess I just never really paid attention since I only ever get those events once in a great while. I assumed that it did, but was never sure. Glad that I now do.
-
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.
Guess I just never really paid attention since I only ever get those events once in a great while. I assumed that it did, but was never sure. Glad that I now do.
Sometimes I leave it where it starts which is usuallly semisalic consanguinity, then swich to the salic version.
How does the law effect other countries? Meaning if a country has semisalic consanguinity and you marry your daughter in to their family does their laws determine if her kids get claims on your lands or only your laws?
How does the law effect other countries? Meaning if a country has semisalic consanguinity and you marry your daughter in to their family does their laws determine if her kids get claims on your lands or only your laws?
Ah, I forgot DV has stability events. Mostly because I stuck to straight CK with a couple mods to make things interesting, and it doesn't have that.
Depends on how strong your daughter's sons are. If they're strongest, then they'll inherit the opposing family's kingdom.
Your titles though depends. If you don't have any heirs in either salic or semi-salic primogeniture or consanguinity, or semi-salic gavelkind, then the kid inherits, age or talent anyway. Salic gavelkind and elective law not so much...
Depends on how strong your daughter's sons are. If they're strongest, then they'll inherit the opposing family's kingdom.
Your titles though depends. If you don't have any heirs in either salic or semi-salic primogeniture or consanguinity, or semi-salic gavelkind, then the kid inherits, age or talent anyway. Salic gavelkind and elective law not so much...
I would find it hard to believe that one day Grand Prince of Kiev just announces to his boyars that his younger sons have lost their rights and the boayars are now bound to heavy feudal obligations. He would have lost his head and old ways would have continued. Russia never became feudal in Western sense but developed it's own system, so I don't see why player should be allowed to make changes in day 1.
In countries like Sweden it took centuries to establish salic succession laws. It was only after CK time period when Gustav Vasa abandoned the elective kingship (you had to be related to the old king in order to be valid candidate, but first there was wars between Sverker and Eric families and after that members of the House of Bjälbö fought against each other.) Feudalism appeared only during the late middle ages and never developed as strict forms as in Central Europe. So also here king would have lost his head if he made changes in day 1.
In Scotland movement from traditional succession order to oldest son and movement towards feudalism started during the reign of king David I. In EU3's game terms he got neighboring bonus from England and advanced in government tech. It was with the help of the Normans that he managed to start Scotland's slow developement towards European style kingdom. So here it should be possible, but not on day 1. Malcolm III was more traditional, although English influence started during his era.
I mentioned these examples, because I think that if there will be CKII, you have steer your kingdom towards the reform in it's administration before you can make actual changes. You shouldn't expect that tribal Alans suddenly adopt Byzantine administration and succession laws just because their chief thinks it's a cool thing.
I think you are right .. and that it would be based on how it works in Rome, where you do not have access to all forms of laws and governments from the start. You had to work towards it. So the Tribe of Alans would spend time and research (and maybe certain decisions) to be able to adopt Byzantine ruling law or succession laws.
These examples are true, but a swift change should be possible, of course, with dire consequenses.
In Hungary (pagan) prince Géza declared that the next ruler will not be elected, but will be his son Vajk (named István after he was baptised) and the most powerful of the Árpád's thereafter.
Of course this resulted in a civil war (in the remaining time of Géza, and for 10-12 years for István), but the declaration was made, and it worked.
There was a slight trouble when István died without a heir, and the pagan rebellion elected Sámuel Aba (a baptised, former jew chieftan) to king. But to their surprise, Sámuel remained christian, and defeated the rebellion before he died.
(he was followed by an Árpád, so after 1 elected king, Hungary was back on track for the Árpád dynasty)
That is how it should work in CK2.
Taking the EU3:HTTT engine as an example: changing the law is possible at any time, but this results in a heavy stability hit (-5) and a loss of legitimacy. These factors combined pretty much ensure a revolt. The revolt should be one that aims to place someone else on the crown (a local noble or powerful vassal), who then keeps the old laws. If the revolt is beaten it will take years before stability and legitimacy are back up, but once they are the new law is accepted in the realm.
The other way should be similar to the HRE power system in EU3: over time a dynasty gains power, if they manage to stay on the crown long enough. By gradually passing reforms the ruling law can then change from full open elective to closed elective (a small group of noble families only), to a semisalic law, eventually to salic law. Each step should cost dynastic influence, which is reset once a step has been passed. So you will be able to go from elective to salic over a long period of time, peacefully, but only if your dynasty remains in power.
Taking the EU3:HTTT engine as an example: changing the law is possible at any time, but this results in a heavy stability hit (-5) and a loss of legitimacy. These factors combined pretty much ensure a revolt. The revolt should be one that aims to place someone else on the crown (a local noble or powerful vassal), who then keeps the old laws. If the revolt is beaten it will take years before stability and legitimacy are back up, but once they are the new law is accepted in the realm.
The other way should be similar to the HRE power system in EU3: over time a dynasty gains power, if they manage to stay on the crown long enough. By gradually passing reforms the ruling law can then change from full open elective to closed elective (a small group of noble families only), to a semisalic law, eventually to salic law. Each step should cost dynastic influence, which is reset once a step has been passed. So you will be able to go from elective to salic over a long period of time, peacefully, but only if your dynasty remains in power.
There's also that little problem where Byzantium didn't have succession laws. Elective Law comes closest to simulating it, but it'd have to include the court members too, and allow you to crown your son or wife co-Emperor thus putting them at the head of the succession unless there's a courtier or other family member or unrelated vassal who really really wants the throne.
I mean, there's not a succession law you could program that would simulate Isaac Angelos' rise to power.
More on-topic, semi-salic primogenure usually.
Emperor had to be appointed by the Senate. That sounds a lot like imperial succession law to me.
I like what you outline here Jord. Moreover, I agree with the notion that changing succession laws was not an easy thing, and often had dire consequences.
For Welsh rulers, tradition and convention placed the first born as the successor of the father regardless of "legitimacy", and the eldest did inherit the choicest lands and headship of the family. However all sons received land of some sort, usually in descending order. Much conflict was generated between the so-called "conservative" elements within Welsh society when Llywelyn the Great designated his second son Dafydd born in a church sanctioned wedlock over the rights of his first-born Gruffydd. So much support for the principle of primogeniture that Dafydd had to keep Gruffydd imprisoned. The same scenario played out a generation later with Llywelyn II and his elder brother Owain, whom he had to keep imprisoned for life, primarily because Llywelyn II was the usurper of his brother's rights.
I don't have Rome as I need to get a new 'puter to play it, but someone mentioned they have full absolute cognatic primogeniture there (first born inherits all regardless of gender) is this true?
Last edited:
I'm not expert in the history of the Eastern Central Europe, but AFAIK process which happened in Hungarian kingship was similar with other countries, where traditional kingship was replaced with Christian kingship. And if I have understood correctly the late 11th century saw a constant struggles of power between the members of the Árpád dynasty, so we could safely say that succession was far from clear at that point. One motive behind those struggles was that new succession order introduced by Andrew I wasn't easily accepted over the old system of seniority, which was common during the early middle ages.
In my opinion, attempting to change the succession law should prompt a civil war the first time the heir under the proposed law differs from the heir under the old law. Each major vassal should have option to see which side they back (if any). If the new law heir wins, then that becomes the established law, although the heir under the old law gets a claim for the next two successions. If they ever succeed in claiming the title, then the law changes back.
Byzantium is a good example, where the Emperor was generally trying to ensure succession to his children, but numerous revolts attempting to take control occurred (not always at succession - sometimes if the Emperor was vulnerable for other reasons). I am inclined to think that Byzantine throne inheritance should have a high weighting for prestige - e.g. success in war. Changing the succession laws by fiat just would not have worked.
Another example of attempting (and failing) to change the succession laws is Hnery I of England trying to have his daughter Mathilda succeed him. In his lifetime, the nobles all said "yes, sure". But when Henry died, Stephen (the son of Henry's sister) was made King. Mathilda fought him, but failed - if Stephen had been a stronger king, then Mathilda's son Henry II would never have inherited the throne.
Byzantium is a good example, where the Emperor was generally trying to ensure succession to his children, but numerous revolts attempting to take control occurred (not always at succession - sometimes if the Emperor was vulnerable for other reasons). I am inclined to think that Byzantine throne inheritance should have a high weighting for prestige - e.g. success in war. Changing the succession laws by fiat just would not have worked.
Another example of attempting (and failing) to change the succession laws is Hnery I of England trying to have his daughter Mathilda succeed him. In his lifetime, the nobles all said "yes, sure". But when Henry died, Stephen (the son of Henry's sister) was made King. Mathilda fought him, but failed - if Stephen had been a stronger king, then Mathilda's son Henry II would never have inherited the throne.