Improving the overall historical accuracy of the game, discussion thread

[Veldmaarschalk]

This thread is a continuation of this thread in the general forum of CKIII.

Please keep the following guidelines in mind

1. Be respectfull towards other posters, the developers etc.
2. Keep it friendly, discussions about historical accuracy can sometimes get heated, so before you make a post, read it again and think to yourself, 'If someone would make a post like this, would I become angry/mad' if yes, then rephrase your post.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Greetings,
I play Crusader Kings 3 on the PS5, and I’ve noticed some historical inaccuracies in the Holy Roman Empire.
First of all, the Liudolfinger dynasty is called “Ludolfinger” in the game, which is incorrect.
Secondly, the list of emperors in the title history of the Holy Roman Empire is incomplete, and many emperors are missing, such as Charles II, Charles III, or Louis II.
Please patch this, thank you.

Liu vs lu is an acceptable difference. The HRE is meant to miss most carolingians because paradox wants the hre to not exist in 867 for some reason

 

[apollo1989vieten]

Liu vs lu is an acceptable difference. The HRE is meant misses most carolingians because paradox wants the hre to not exist in 867 for some reason

It functional didn’t exist after Louis the Pious’s sons fought a civil war after his death. The title of emperor still existed, but it was mostly symbolic. The title didn’t carry any weight until Otto the Great.

 

[FredericII97]

Liu vs lu is an acceptable difference. The HRE is meant misses most carolingians because paradox wants the hre to not exist in 867 for some reason

But it’s also about the year 1066. And if you look at the titles there, those emperors are missing, even though they should actually be included. That would be a good middle ground — to not have them there yet in 867, so that the empire can still be formed. Because in 1066, you could add all the emperors to the titles, and then everything would be fine.

 

[Baxterheyyo]

More of a question than a suggestion; in the 1178 start date, Count Philippe of Flanders has an illegitimate son (Thierry) and iirc he's eight years old (so born in 1170). What's the basis for this being Thierry's date of birth? As far as I can tell, the historical Thierry's date of birth is unknown and he's been described as being "much younger than his cousins" (i.e. the future Count of Flanders/Latin Emperor Baldwin and his brothers, all of whom are actually younger than Thierry in-game). See W. H. Rudt de Collenberg, L'Empereur Isaac de Chypre et sa fille (1155-1207), 38 Peeters Publishers 123, 171 (1968) ("Thierry éta[it] probablement bien plus jeune que ses cousins.").