I'd be interested to hear whether the developers plan to attempt to model the (often rival) theoretical powers of the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope into the mechanics of gameplay.
Historically both the Empire and Papacy claimed - with varying degrees of aggressiveness - universal authority within Christendom. I'll summarise these theories of authority in the next couple of paragraphs; if they're already familiar to you, feel free to skip them.
The Imperial ideology (encapsulated in polemical tracts by Guibert of Ravenna during the struggle with Gregory VII, and later in Dante's Monarchia, Marsilius of Padua's Defensor Pacis, and Antonio de Roselli's Pseudo Monarchia) held that supreme temporal authority lay with the Emperor, potentially including the granting of landed and monetary benefices to clergy, with spiritual matters being left in the hands of the Pope and his ecclesiastical hierarchy. The Emperor was held to be the ultimate source of jurisdiction for all Christians, and as such was the supreme arbiter in high level disputes. During the Great Schism, for example, Emperor Sigismund took it upon himself to push for the Council of Constance (1414-18) and force the election of a new pope acceptable to the majority of European monarchs.
The ideology of papal supremacy (later know as Papalism) originated in the Ecclesiatical Reform Movement of the eleventh century. As well as lobbying for higher spiritual and behavioural standards amongst monks and clergymen, it demanded that clerical land and offices be freed from the control of laypeople, ostensibly to prevent the moral corruption of the world from affecting the ministers of the church, thus the Reformist rallying cry of libertas ecclesiae! The sin of simony (selling clerical offices - and their accompanying fiefs - for cash) was rife throughout the middle ages, but it was fiercely combated at certain junctures, particularly in the late eleventh/early twelfth centuries. Gregory VII's extreme view of the authority of the church and its need to overcome encroaching lay involvement (particularly in contest with Emperor Henry IV) led him - and his canon lawyers - to formulate a conception of the papal office as possessing supreme spiritual and temporal plenitudo potestatis. Relying upon the forged Donation of Constantine, the story of the pope placing the imperial crown upon Charlemagne's head, and a barrage of polemical legal arguments, Gregory effectively asserted the universal authority of the Church - concentrated in the Papal office - over all other rulers in Christendom. These claims were countered in the Concordat of Worms (1122), but a fresh contest with another powerful laymen - Philip the Fair of France - led Boniface VIII to reaffirm papal supremacy with renewed vigour in the bull Unam Sanctam (1302). Even after the Schism, polemicists like Juan de Torquemada continued to argue for the universal authority of the papacy.
Of course, these claims were often little more than wars of words, to which other rulers - lay and ecclesiastical - paid lip service, or ignored entirely. The expansion of law as an academic subject throughout the Christian west led to kings and even archbishops and towns formulating their own claims to semi-autonomous or even fully independent sovereignty. In the fourteenth century the Italian legists Bartolus of Sassoferrato and Baldus of Ubaldis invented legal theories which could justify the pursuit of local jurisdictional self-determination.
Nonetheless, at times of conflict - e.g. between a disaffected vassal and his liege - either one of the 'universal' authorities might be invited to intervene. If I may simplify the picture somewhat, it's fair to say that roughly from the mid-eleventh to the late fourteenth century the princes of the Holy Roman Empire were constantly chopping and changing between 'Papal' and 'Imperial' allegiances according to their immediate needs. Throughout northern Italy and even within particular towns, the Papal/Imperial or Guelph/Ghibelline division was a means of crystallising loyalties.
It would therefore be wonderful if, as well as allowing the growth of autonomous kingdoms, principalities, city-states and the like across Europe, the Crusader Kings II engine allowed for some kind of recourse to a supreme arbiter, either the Pope or the Emperor. It would be even more amazing if these two could engage in occasional jurisdictional disputes. For that matter, the Pope could engage in 'investiture controversies' with any lay lord who was influencing ecclesiastical appointments (to bishoprics, or - exicitingly! - in the new 'settlements' in provinces), giving his enemies an excuse to declare war on him with the blessing of the Church.
CK gave the occasional nod to the papal/imperial disputes and the investiture controversies in a couple of events, but they weren't really represented in the structure of the game mechanics. A system that could consistently encompass the kind of development mentioned in the previous paragraph without making Papal or Imperial claims more powerful than they were historically would be a dream come true, and add a whole extra layer of immersion to the simulation of medieval politics.
Thoughts? Opinions? I understand that only so much can be done within the game's engine, so I guess both the view of the community and the time and resources of the developers need to be considered here.
Historically both the Empire and Papacy claimed - with varying degrees of aggressiveness - universal authority within Christendom. I'll summarise these theories of authority in the next couple of paragraphs; if they're already familiar to you, feel free to skip them.
The Imperial ideology (encapsulated in polemical tracts by Guibert of Ravenna during the struggle with Gregory VII, and later in Dante's Monarchia, Marsilius of Padua's Defensor Pacis, and Antonio de Roselli's Pseudo Monarchia) held that supreme temporal authority lay with the Emperor, potentially including the granting of landed and monetary benefices to clergy, with spiritual matters being left in the hands of the Pope and his ecclesiastical hierarchy. The Emperor was held to be the ultimate source of jurisdiction for all Christians, and as such was the supreme arbiter in high level disputes. During the Great Schism, for example, Emperor Sigismund took it upon himself to push for the Council of Constance (1414-18) and force the election of a new pope acceptable to the majority of European monarchs.
The ideology of papal supremacy (later know as Papalism) originated in the Ecclesiatical Reform Movement of the eleventh century. As well as lobbying for higher spiritual and behavioural standards amongst monks and clergymen, it demanded that clerical land and offices be freed from the control of laypeople, ostensibly to prevent the moral corruption of the world from affecting the ministers of the church, thus the Reformist rallying cry of libertas ecclesiae! The sin of simony (selling clerical offices - and their accompanying fiefs - for cash) was rife throughout the middle ages, but it was fiercely combated at certain junctures, particularly in the late eleventh/early twelfth centuries. Gregory VII's extreme view of the authority of the church and its need to overcome encroaching lay involvement (particularly in contest with Emperor Henry IV) led him - and his canon lawyers - to formulate a conception of the papal office as possessing supreme spiritual and temporal plenitudo potestatis. Relying upon the forged Donation of Constantine, the story of the pope placing the imperial crown upon Charlemagne's head, and a barrage of polemical legal arguments, Gregory effectively asserted the universal authority of the Church - concentrated in the Papal office - over all other rulers in Christendom. These claims were countered in the Concordat of Worms (1122), but a fresh contest with another powerful laymen - Philip the Fair of France - led Boniface VIII to reaffirm papal supremacy with renewed vigour in the bull Unam Sanctam (1302). Even after the Schism, polemicists like Juan de Torquemada continued to argue for the universal authority of the papacy.
Of course, these claims were often little more than wars of words, to which other rulers - lay and ecclesiastical - paid lip service, or ignored entirely. The expansion of law as an academic subject throughout the Christian west led to kings and even archbishops and towns formulating their own claims to semi-autonomous or even fully independent sovereignty. In the fourteenth century the Italian legists Bartolus of Sassoferrato and Baldus of Ubaldis invented legal theories which could justify the pursuit of local jurisdictional self-determination.
Nonetheless, at times of conflict - e.g. between a disaffected vassal and his liege - either one of the 'universal' authorities might be invited to intervene. If I may simplify the picture somewhat, it's fair to say that roughly from the mid-eleventh to the late fourteenth century the princes of the Holy Roman Empire were constantly chopping and changing between 'Papal' and 'Imperial' allegiances according to their immediate needs. Throughout northern Italy and even within particular towns, the Papal/Imperial or Guelph/Ghibelline division was a means of crystallising loyalties.
It would therefore be wonderful if, as well as allowing the growth of autonomous kingdoms, principalities, city-states and the like across Europe, the Crusader Kings II engine allowed for some kind of recourse to a supreme arbiter, either the Pope or the Emperor. It would be even more amazing if these two could engage in occasional jurisdictional disputes. For that matter, the Pope could engage in 'investiture controversies' with any lay lord who was influencing ecclesiastical appointments (to bishoprics, or - exicitingly! - in the new 'settlements' in provinces), giving his enemies an excuse to declare war on him with the blessing of the Church.
CK gave the occasional nod to the papal/imperial disputes and the investiture controversies in a couple of events, but they weren't really represented in the structure of the game mechanics. A system that could consistently encompass the kind of development mentioned in the previous paragraph without making Papal or Imperial claims more powerful than they were historically would be a dream come true, and add a whole extra layer of immersion to the simulation of medieval politics.
Thoughts? Opinions? I understand that only so much can be done within the game's engine, so I guess both the view of the community and the time and resources of the developers need to be considered here.
