Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Overthrowing monarchs

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
unmerged(9422)

unmerged(9422)

General
May 22, 2002
1.811
0
I am guessing that in CK much of land will be divided into "Kingdoms" and "Empires". And there will be a monarch as leader of those lands. And then that kingdom will be split among the monarch's feudal vassals. I am also supposing the vassals will be able to fight among eachother, ect.

Now, will it be possible for a feudal lord to overthrow the monarch and become the monarch or something himself? :confused: Perhaps if the monarch became weak, then his feudal vassals could want to overthrow him? :confused: For example, I will use Germany: The lands of Germany will be an empire, but split into feudal states, led by the Emperor. So, if the Emperor is to become weak, and cannot stop his vassals from fighting eachother, not be able to well defend the land, ect. Will there be a risk that his vassals could go against him, and then try to overthrow him and could they become Emperor themselves? :confused:

Sorry if this has already been discussed... :( I did not see it if it was. :)
 
That would be cool :)
Living in constant fear that your vassals might actually realize what a jerk you are and come to get you...

Though noone but Snowball or Paradox can anwer you for sure... but we've became masters of speculations already. :)

So i bet 10 dollars that that feature is in... provided that the vassal has some sort of claim to the throne.
 
From what is known so far about the game I think it'd be an educated guess that this feature is in. After all:
- you have to assure the loyalty of your lieges and vassals
- you can start out as a vassal/lowly noble, wanting to rise in power

So there need to be ways onto the throne of a country. Marriage/heritage seems to be a way, but I am sure that there'll be other ways (insurgence).

Indeed, it would be great if it was possible that you're kicked off the throne and to flee into your homelands as a "small" noble again, or having to fight for the crown.

I surely hope that there's a lot of possibilities for intrigues. :)
 
I would say that it would be very hard. And getting harder the further you go along. Kings were after all apointed by the lords representative on earth and as such it would have very hard to even consider to overthrow him in a civilized country.
 
Originally posted by Idiotboy
I would say that it would be very hard. And getting harder the further you go along. Kings were after all apointed by the lords representative on earth and as such it would have very hard to even consider to overthrow him in a civilized country.
Click to expand...

Good point. At the time of CK, all earthly sovereigns (at least of the playable, Christian countries in the west) bowed to the Pope. However, the perception of who was legit was relative. A good example of that would be the use of crossbows. Originally, it was ruled out by the church as too cruel to use against Christians (the crossbow was really popular during the Crusades, though, against "heathens"). In Europe, later on, it became quite popular to label your enemy as heretic, so that you could use crossbows against them.

So the divine leigtimacy which most monarchies claimd to have seems a bit mute once someone rises against them.
 
Ah, thank you for your comments everyone :)

I see the point about the monarchs being divine. And how they were often elected. Though, I am sure if the monarch became an idiot and a tyrant after he was crowned... Then the people might go against him :D

Also, if you were one of the vassals, and you were very powerful, you could maybe make some kind of claim to the throne and overthrow the current monarch :D

I think that would probably be very fun... To be a vassal, pledging allegiance to your king... While training your hordes of knights, and the king supposes you are training to defend his realm and for the crusades, and then you secretly gain allies and go against him :D However, if you were to win, many people would hate you.

Perhaps also, an unhappy lord could ally with an enemy power, who is going to war with your monarch. And then if you and the foreign power win, the foreign monarch could install you as the new monarch of that realm. I believe things like this happened in real life.. Correct? :confused:


Meiji-Tenno
 
Originally posted by eschaton
The crucial question is how historical it is. If there are few cases during this period of overthrows of royal dynasties (which I think was the case in Western Europe), I don't think there should be such a feature, interesting or not.
Click to expand...

Hence my point. To even consider to overthrow a dynasty was very unlikely. To overthrow a king wasn´t completely out there but to deny an entire dynasty? No way.
 
Originally posted by Idiotboy
Hence my point. To even consider to overthrow a dynasty was very unlikely. To overthrow a king wasn´t completely out there but to deny an entire dynasty? No way.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about Western Europe, but read a history of Byzantium. It's full of examples of the Emperor being killed of or deposed or forced into exile, etc. And it wasn't always family members; generals, court members, etc, all had their turns as well. They weren't always 100% accepted, but they were often accepted enough to allow their sons to continue reigning. And, actually, some of the best Emperors rose to the throne in this way. There were some pretty nasty murders of Byzantine Emperors and the Empire continued on regardless.
 
Originally posted by wookiee25
I'm not sure about Western Europe, but read a history of Byzantium. It's full of examples of the Emperor being killed of or deposed or forced into exile, etc. And it wasn't always family members; generals, court members, etc, all had their turns as well. They weren't always 100% accepted, but they were often accepted enough to allow their sons to continue reigning. And, actually, some of the best Emperors rose to the throne in this way. There were some pretty nasty murders of Byzantine Emperors and the Empire continued on regardless.
Click to expand...

I know the history very well. But even when the emperor was desposed they almost always kept the family in power and prefered to link themselves to the emperors line through marriage either themselves or a close relative so that they could claim family if they tried to set themselves up as co-emperors. Only if a ruler is childless and lacks close relatives a complete removal is feasible.
 
In England, only Edward II and Richard II fit the description, both because of a baronial rebellion.

Drakken
 
Originally posted by Drakken
In England, only Edward II and Richard II fit the description, both because of a baronial rebellion.

Drakken
Click to expand...

And at least in the case of Edward II his line still continued to rule.
 
Hmm.. I see the point about a whole dynasty being overthrown.

Perhaps you would have to be related to the ruling family to have a claim.

For example, a relative, or even son (a very dishonoured evil one :D ) of a king could ally with the barons, and/or a foreign power against the king, and try to gain power for himself.

Wasn't this rather common?? :confused:

I believe King John of England's nephew (?) allied with King Phillip of France, and attempted to overthrow John.

Also, one could rebel against his brother who was crowned. Wouldn't usually the eldest son become the heir, and the others would often become like a baron? :confused: So perhaps they could be jealous at their brother and try to to overthrow him :D

This would add another challenge to the game for the monarchs: Holding their families together :D
 
Originally posted by Meiji-Tenno
Hmm.. I see the point about a whole dynasty being overthrown.

Perhaps you would have to be related to the ruling family to have a claim.
Click to expand...

That is quite the reasoning why monarchs kept their family the closest possible. The biggest danger of overthrow comes from the monarch's near family - these with a inheritance legitimacy AND the monetary, prestige and personal credibility necessary to claim that they can replace their incompetent liege.

Drakken
 
Originally posted by Drakken
That is quite the reasoning why monarchs kept their family the closest possible. The biggest danger of overthrow comes from the monarch's near family - these with a inheritance legitimacy AND the monetary, prestige and personal credibility necessary to claim that they can replace their incompetent liege.

Drakken
Click to expand...

The chanses increase with a daughter as the only legitimate heir. I believe it was mentioned monarchs can be overthrown, and their deposted family members can travel to other courts, to seek support and such...
 
Originally posted by historycaesar
I believe it was mentioned monarchs can be overthrown, and their deposted family members can travel to other courts, to seek support and such...
Click to expand...
Alexios IV and the fourth crusade spring to mind... ;)


Originally posted by Sytass
Good point. At the time of CK, all earthly sovereigns (at least of the playable, Christian countries in the west) bowed to the Pope. However, the perception of who was legit was relative. A good example of that would be the use of crossbows. Originally, it was ruled out by the church as too cruel to use against Christians (the crossbow was really popular during the Crusades, though, against "heathens"). In Europe, later on, it became quite popular to label your enemy as heretic, so that you could use crossbows against them.
Click to expand...
Even if you managed to have a ruler labled as a heretic you would have a hard time disinheriting his entire dynasty though... As an example Raymond VII of Toulouse managed to hold on to his fathers land even when he was persecuted as an heretic...
 
I think this feature would be better suited if you played a member of a royal dynasty and not the whole family.

I think it would be like trying to purposely set off a civil war in EU2 so your current monarchs brother would take the throne. Destructive and you don't gain much, except possibly if the one you were trying to put on the throne had claims to something you wanted to press that the current king does not.

but then again thats assuming your dynasty is split up into individual members. I don't know if it'll be george, john, raymond <family name> , etc or just "House of whatever".
 
Originally posted by Idiotboy
Hence my point. To even consider to overthrow a dynasty was very unlikely. To overthrow a king wasn´t completely out there but to deny an entire dynasty? No way.
Click to expand...

Henry VI Hohenstaufen eliminated the rule of the Hauteville dynasty in Sicily and in turn his line was eliminated from ruling Sicily by Charles of Anjou. So I guess it could happen.:)
 
Originally posted by Sonny
Henry VI Hohenstaufen eliminated the rule of the Hauteville dynasty in Sicily and in turn his line was eliminated from ruling Sicily by Charles of Anjou. So I guess it could happen.:)
Click to expand...
And IIRC both of these happened with Papal support...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back