In CK2, your main enemies should be your own vassals (Civil strife)

[Damocles]

I still don't like the title. I mean 'main' enemies, the vassals.

In relative peace, yes. But if there is an enemy next door (Poland - Russa, Rus - Mongols, Hungary - Byzantium/HRE/Ottomans, Aragon - Granada) it should be more important for both the liege and the vassal.

The point is that, a monarch being able to focus on an external challenger should be a luxury and a golden opportunity. As it was historically. You should feel as if you are seizing opportunities that might not come again for a generation. And it should take at least another 'golden' generation, to ensure that it's held. History is rife with conquests that died with the conqueror. Those that stand out as exceptional, such as the Norman Conquest of England or Sicily, succeeded because they had twenty or thirty years to consolidate, along with bringing in a very efficient infrastructure. Count Roger of Sicily was able to make institutional changes that made the muslim and greek populations of Sicily more loyal to him than his own vassals. Probably because Sicily can best be modelled as one large personal demesne.

And in any case, historically, especially in the countries you mention with the exception of the ottomans, the principal vassals were almost always the biggest obstacles to wars of aggression, because they didn't want the monarch or fellow magnates gaining more power. There is a good reason why with few exceptions, various sovereign realms maintained so much continuity.

Perhaps 'main enemies' wasn't the best title either. Howabout 'main obstacles', or 'main challengers?'. The point is, you should have united your own realm before worrying about other realms.

Wasn't it the factional division of Rus that made them easy pray for the Mongols?

(not too familiar with early Russia)

Its not really in the instinct of man to ally against their common enemy. It seems, usually, they'd rather go to their own destruction than work out their differences. Especially when they feel like they can't win, even with a united front. Or, they might feel a united front under their personal banner is the only way to end foreign aggression. I mean, the vassal is already murdering their own people and their liege's men, why expect them to be honorable after that?

You are absolutely correct. Galuska has a tendency to pick examples that makes the opposite point, especially with the Rus and other Eastern Europeans...(whether they were called dukes and counts or not).

That said, and I don't mean any offense, but I've noticed a lot of 'Eastern European' posters on this board don't like to recognize the fact that nationalism did not even remotely exist during medieval times. Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian and Russian magnates, etc, cared about themselves first and foremost, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming, often literally, into any semblance of a united front. And it rarely lasted...see the tribulations of Corvinus and Hunyadi, and that's several hundred years after CK2 starts.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

You are absolutely correct. Galuska has a tendency to pick examples that makes the opposite point, especially with the Rus and other Eastern Europeans...(whether they were called dukes and counts or not).

Yes, I have this tendency, because I was never arguing with this for western europe. (see my first post in this matter) The fact that for example a german elector should be a main obstacle for the HRE emperor. Or the duke of Normandy to the french king.


BUT
In Hungary _there were no inheritable titles_ there were no counts or dukes, and nothing similar under an other name. Western way of feudalism was non-existent. What is considered a count level title in international comparison, the ispán, is appointed and removed by the kings will, he cannot do anything about this decision, and the land he _administrates_ are not his, cannot be inherited.

The king simply cannot be challenged by his vassals because they are too small to matter.

This can change only if:
- the king makes a strong vassal himself (usually happened with a contender who presented land to his general)
- because of the inter-family relations, a family inherited from lots of other families (happened after Mohács, where the nobility was basicly beheaded, and who lived inherited lots)
- during a kingless period (like when the last Árpád died, or after Mathias died) some families conquer other families land

That said, and I don't mean any offense, but I've noticed a lot of 'Eastern European' posters on this board don't like to recognize the fact that nationalism did not even remotely exist during medieval times. Hungarian, Polish, Lithuanian and Russian magnates, etc, cared about themselves first and foremost...

How does nationalism come into this? I never said anything like this, so don't misinterpret my words.

What I did say is that there are circumstances when the aims are the same for the king, the wealthy landowners and the serfs. Basicly aims that unite the kingdom under one idea. NOT nationalities under the kingdom, but all subjects of the king.

For example a defensive was against muslims.

Wasn't it the factional division of Rus that made them easy pray for the Mongols?

(not too familiar with early Russia)

Its not really in the instinct of man to ally against their common enemy. It seems, usually, they'd rather go to their own destruction than work out their differences. Especially when they feel like they can't win, even with a united front. Or, they might feel a united front under their personal banner is the only way to end foreign aggression. I mean, the vassal is already murdering their own people and their liege's men, why expect them to be honorable after that?

Sorry, I meant the russian princes. (there was no 'Rus')

The part 'already murdering their own people' is very important. You see, there wasn't anything like this everywhere.
I know I am 'picking my example' but it just to show that it was not true for every place.

There were no 'my men' 'my subjets'. Everyone was first and foremost the men of the king. Even if you gave a bucket of gold, and the guy really liked you, he would be first and foremost the subject of the king, and the member of your family (= your familiar) only as second.

(in France for example a vassal of a duke was not 'reporting' to the king. That is an important difference)

 

[unmerged(2456)]

How does nationalism come into this? I never said anything like this, so don't misinterpret my words.

Nationalism as we define it today did not exist during this period. Natiionalism is the wanting for centralized rule as opposed to local rule and aligning onself with a greater nation-state. IE someone thinks himself as a French citizen first, and not a Norman or even Caenian (sp?).

During this era people thought about thesmelves and their local area first. Whether Normandy was ruled by English, French or a German noble mattered little to most of the population. That lack of caring who rules on top so long as they don't interefere too much with local politics is what the lack of nationalism looks like.

Generally the only way nationalism is able to from is from an outside threat of imminent invasion or longstanding oppression by a foreign entity. People get together and decide they might not like each other all that much, but they have a shared heritage and thus something in common; they don't want to be ruled by an outside force. The only other way that has been shown for nationalism to evolve is through a concerted effort like the Qin first implimented and Han expanded where they divided the country in such a way that ethnic and natural boundaries would not help segregate a population and made the Confucianisation legal system to admistrate the government. This central idelogy and legal system which was to an extent constant (if not entirely without tampering) by succeeding generations gave a nationalistic bent to most of China. Europe, however, had nothing like this and even if someone started in 1066 to impliment it, the results would likely not bear much fruit even if they were successful before EoG.

 

[Kaleidoscope]

Nationalism as we define it today did not exist during this period.

The Hundred Years War started in the 1330's, and Edward III managed to persuade parliament (and thus the country) to fund and fight this war mainly based on nationalist and patriotic ideals. There was certainly nationalism in the CK time period.

 

[unmerged(54293)]

BUT
In Hungary _there were no inheritable titles_ there were no counts or dukes, and nothing similar under an other name. Western way of feudalism was non-existent. What is considered a count level title in international comparison, the ispán, is appointed and removed by the kings will, he cannot do anything about this decision, and the land he _administrates_ are not his, cannot be inherited.

Hopefully, CK2 will be able to simulate such situations.

In my opinion, one of the main problems of CK1 was that - except for the Byzantine Empire, where you had a higher demesne limit - the system of feudalism was more or less the same in all countries. There were different inheritance and ruling laws, but they could easily be changed by one klick and were also bugged.

That's why disloyal vassals had to break free from their realms if they chose to rebel: There was simply nothing else they could ask for, like more privileges, influence on regal politics, or something else.

Therefore, CK2 should make the balance of power between ruler and vassals more dynamic. One could strive for a more centralized power (like in Byzantium or, apparently, Hungary), or a rather decentralized realm (like the HRE). The important thing is that - though there was a general tendency towards a powerful center during the timeframe - both approaches must be a good thing under different aspects, to avoid making the game a one-way street.

 

[Antoine]

The Hundred Years War started in the 1330's, and Edward III managed to persuade parliament (and thus the country) to fund and fight this war mainly based on nationalist and patriotic ideals. There was certainly nationalism in the CK time period.

The parliament was not "the country" but an emanation of the top of the burgher class of the big cities, concerned with international trade and so finding some interest to eventually support a prince claims. While some of these exceptionnal educated people may have had some nationalist feelings centuries before the peasants, they were mostly worried by a strong France retaking control of the county of Flanders and so threatening the interest of the London merchants ; they were also globally interested in a war meaning a lot of stolen goods coming from Bordeaux to sell.

ps : back on the subject... I think common enemy may work... as long there is also common interest. Vassals should support a war if more lands are promised to them in result, and effectively given to them when their kingdom expand. Ideally some system should exist to convince vassals to support a war by saying you will give priority to the enforcement of their claims, with very bad loyalty effects if the king fail to deliver the promised provinces. Taking for the king personnal demesne a foreign province also claimed by a loyal vassal whose troops were used in the war should especially have very bad consequences.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

@Jinnai:

I know what nationalism if of course.
What I didn't understand is the reasoning of Damocles, who thinks that my (and other eastern european members) comments are based on nationalism, which is not true.


@Todor:

Hopefully, CK2 will be able to simulate such situations.
In my opinion, one of the main problems of CK1 was that - except for the Byzantine Empire, where you had a higher demesne limit - the system of feudalism was more or less the same in all countries. There were different inheritance and ruling laws, but they could easily be changed by one klick and were also bugged.

Therefore, CK2 should make the balance of power between ruler and vassals more dynamic. One could strive for a more centralized power (like in Byzantium or, apparently, Hungary), or a rather decentralized realm (like the HRE). The important thing is that - though there was a general tendency towards a powerful center during the timeframe - both approaches must be a good thing under different aspects, to avoid making the game a one-way street.

True.
Both ways have good and bad sides.

It is evident that every country needs smaller level nobles to help the king, he cannot do anything himself.

The HRE way of doing things has more troubles with vassals, but when they can be rallied, it gives more power.
The hungarian king always had more power over ispáns, but it was costing him money: the named ispáns, báns, or the vajda of Transylvania received a huge wage from the king to do the administration. AFAIK the emperor didn't have to pay the saxon duke to govern his duchy.
Basicly more centralised, but less income (an ispán doesn't pay scutage as in CK1, but receives a salary instead. On the plus side, he can be removed at will)

This is just one point of difference, which should not be obvious, like a traditional custom -> feudal contract change in CK1. It should be really be considered and shouldn't be easy to decide.

 

[Damocles]

Galuska,

I just get the sense that you're viewing this civil unrest subject a bit more narrowedly than you should. Whether they had titles or not, or whatever they were called, the Hungarian, Polish and Russian magnates were still very independent-minded. Perhaps they had less opportunity in Hungary, but you said it yourself that when the King died, they might rise up if they managed to conquer other family's land.

My idea was never meant to be specific to Frankish feudalism, circa 1066. But in every 'realm' where there is of course, a varying layer and balance of power, but all with many of the same essential elements (such as church, burgher and peasantry, or...court factions and 'country' factions.)

 

[unmerged(84239)]

Galuska,

I just get the sense that you're viewing this civil unrest subject a bit more narrowedly than you should. Whether they had titles or not, or whatever they were called, the Hungarian, Polish and Russian magnates were still very independent-minded. Perhaps they had less opportunity in Hungary, but you said it yourself that when the King died, they might rise up if they managed to conquer other family's land.

Originally I said that 'vassals' were only problematic in western Europe.

I agree, that there should be inner problems, and they shouldn't end up with the problematic area leaving the country, it should be solved internally.
What my problem is that it shouldn't be generalized at all for all regions. Muslim tribes and centralized states had their fair share of inner troubles (and it should be reflected in game too), true, but it doesn't involve any vassals at all.


The fact that there were no western type vassals doesn't mean that the nobility can't put pressure on the king- just not in a way modelled in CK1, or what was suggested.

Example:
House of Árpád ended, and the council of nobles could elect a king. They had different ideas (must be hungarian, must own an army, must have papal support, etc), these kings had to fight the nobles who wanted other contenders. But this doesn't come down to a powerful duke or 2, but 50-100 smaller families per side, so this shouldn't be generalized, shouldn't be the same kind of problem then in the west.


an other example:

It should only be in extreme situations, with extreme loss of prestige, that a Sovereign is able to execute or annex a rebel baron's lands.

This would be the norm. The family who betrays and takes actions against the king (and loses) is exterminated (all members except for girls married away already) and the holdings are inherited by the king.

 

[Spurs_man123]

A possible answer to this debate is to use the system in CK1 with a few tweaks. In CK1 you could change the laws of your country to Salic Primogeniture, or semi-salic primogeniture etc. Perhaps a player could choose as hungary ton have a western style vassal system or a more centralised hungarian system with a heavy penalty for changing?

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

Sorry, I meant the russian princes. (there was no 'Rus')

The part 'already murdering their own people' is very important. You see, there wasn't anything like this everywhere.
I know I am 'picking my example' but it just to show that it was not true for every place.

There were no 'my men' 'my subjets'. Everyone was first and foremost the men of the king. Even if you gave a bucket of gold, and the guy really liked you, he would be first and foremost the subject of the king, and the member of your family (= your familiar) only as second.

(in France for example a vassal of a duke was not 'reporting' to the king. That is an important difference)

Err, yes, Kievan Rus was a state durring the period. In what sense do you mean "there was no Rus"?

My point was that people in positions of power do not work together simply because of threat from a foreign power. Often times, they might see this as an opportunity to expand their own powerbase. Really, its the internal power of the state that makes a government body work together, most of the time.

Hungary during the period had several powerplays within the Arpad dynasty for the throne. It seems that they kept their vassals loyal by giving them many concessions. This should be modeled in the game, but it should not be impossible for Hungary to have internal strife. Especially when that was not the case in real history (like the familial powerplays I mentioned).

 

[unmerged(84239)]

Err, yes, Kievan Rus was a state durring the period. In what sense do you mean "there was no Rus"?

like no 'rus' but there were independent countries like: Kiev, Novgorod, Vladimir-Suzdal, etc.

Hungary during the period had several powerplays within the Arpad dynasty for the throne. It seems that they kept their vassals loyal by giving them many concessions. This should be modeled in the game, but it should not be impossible for Hungary to have internal strife. Especially when that was not the case in real history (like the familial powerplays I mentioned).

True.

I didn't stay that hungarians, russians, seljuks, etc. should be free of internal strifes.
Just that they should be free of vassal troubles.
(NOT free of succession crisis, wealthy landowners, too powerful free cities, etc.)

 

[HolisticGod]

Damo,

No thread yet. I'm just feeling around.

What days would work for you?

galuska,

Perhaps better to define vassals, for game purposes, as all clients and subordinates in a position to rebel and extract concessions. A Seljuk general or local grandee with an army and a grudge is no less so situated than a French duke or English baron.

 

[Garak]

Err, yes, Kievan Rus was a state durring the period. In what sense do you mean "there was no Rus"?

Because there wasn't one. "Kievan Rus" is a general term used by historians. The idea of any kind of unified Rus/Russia under a single ruler did not come about until well after this game's time frame. The various principalities were entirely seperate entities, not different factions or vassals under a single crown.

Maybe they could add vassal rebelliousness as a setting you can change, like difficulty. Have a Normal or Standard setting meant to reflect history/game balance, then other levels of either greater or lesser rebelliousness, to suit the preferences/play style of the player.