Pressing claims of women

[Harassercat]

Does CK2+ have different rules for female claimants? Because in vanilla I rarely if ever was able to press claims for women but now while playing CK2+ it's happening a lot.

In my current game, starting as Öysteinn Yngling in 769, I married a woman from the Skjöldung dynasty and was later able to press her claim for d_Jylland. Her father was the Jarl of Sjælland and later formed k_Denmark. Eventually she inherited her father's kingdom so at that point the kingdoms of Norway and Denmark were united by marriage. With a few strategic assassinations I was then able to have one of our sons be the heir to both kingdoms. The hilarious thing was that in the end the Queen of Denmark died in battle, aged 55, against the son of her late husband (son of a concubine); he was the half-brother of my heir and upon succession in Norway I declared war on him to take the two counties he inherited, and got help from my old mother the Queen of Denmark. In what sort of sick, twisted world would an aging queen be slain on the field of battle by the son of her late husband?

I have never had similar things happen in vanilla CK2. I see a lot more female rulers playing this mod and it's also a lot more common for them to lead armies. Also, why does CK2+ make it much easier to change the gender laws? I found it quite reasonable both in terms of realims and gameplay to have a steep Tolerance tech requirement for those laws. What's the experience and opinion of other CK2+ players on this?

 

[Tatterhood]

Does CK2+ have different rules for female claimants? Because in vanilla I rarely if ever was able to press claims for women but now while playing CK2+ it's happening a lot.

In vanilla you can't press claims for women on strictly agnatic title while in CK2+ you can. So in certain places and times it's a lot easier.

As for women leading armies, the fact that you're seeing so many is mostly because you're playing in Scandinavia. Norse pagans can always appoint women with the Shield Maiden trait as commanders, whereas for most religions a certain law has to be passed to allow that.

 

[Harassercat]

What is strange to me is that in vanilla most of the tribal realms start as agnatic-cognatic elective gavelkind, while in CK2+ they start as agnatic only. So it would seem like womens' claims can't be pressed even on agnatic-cognatic titles in vanilla, while in CK2+ their claims can always be pressed. I wonder why the mod dev's have made these changes - why agnatic only by default and why change the conditions for pressing womens' claims?

I did notice the Shield Maiden trait, so I was aware that was the reason for the female commanders. It's kind of funny to have your king lead the army's center and his concubines or lovers leading each flank. I also recently tumbled one of my shield maiden commanders while on a campaign against the Finns, which made for a nice bit of RPG. Now with Reaper's Due we'll have shield maidens in vanilla too, which is fine by me, though the historical accuracy of it is somewhat doubtful.

 

[pottypie]

As to why it's easier to change gender laws, that's because some people (myself included) pr

Now with Reaper's Due we'll have shield maidens in vanilla too, which is fine by me, though the historical accuracy of it is somewhat doubtful.

I swear that about 2/3 of CK2 DLCs these days just add shit that's already in CK2+.

 

[TC9078]

As to why it's easier to change gender laws, that's because some people (myself included) pr

I swear that about 2/3 of CK2 DLCs these days just add shit that's already in CK2+.

Maybe Wiz is still watching and suggests that they add things from here if they cannot think of anything else.

 

[Ruisuki]

ck2+ is the best man

 

[Tusade]

In my game, a bedouin muslim woman with her host is attacking to get the kingdom of galicia.

A man, ok. But, a muslim woman?????

 

[vukica]

In my game, a bedouin muslim woman with her host is attacking to get the kingdom of galicia.

A man, ok. But, a muslim woman?????

OH NO!!! what has the world come to.

 

[Aerkhanite]

OH NO!!! what has the world come to.

Muslim women may not lead armies or hold most positions of authority, especially not in Islam at the time period of CK2.
They were practically always in supportive roles.

"A people will not succeed who are commanded by a woman." Sahih Bukhari 4163


http://abuaminaelias.com/can-women-take-positions-of-leadership-and-authority-in-islam/
"In modern practice, Muslim women perform many roles in society in the fields of religion, politics, science, medicine, education, police, the military, and other important functions."
Keyword there is modern.

"Therefore, a Muslim woman is allowed to obtain any position of leadership and authority for which she is qualified, although some positions are specific only to men such as commander of the armed forces and prayer leader."
Granted, nowadays this is more lax, but not back then.
A man and a women have distinctive roles and duties in Islamic and Arabic societies. The duty of commanding armies belong to the man.

See also http://www.beautifulislam.net/women/female_leadership_islam.htm


Do not take the handful of exceptions as a rule. Like Joan of Arc, they're a nothing but a handful of exceptions.

 

[schwarherz]

Muslim women may not lead armies or hold most positions of authority, especially not in Islam at the time period of CK2.
They were practically always in supportive roles.

"A people will not succeed who are commanded by a woman." Sahih Bukhari 4163


http://abuaminaelias.com/can-women-take-positions-of-leadership-and-authority-in-islam/
"In modern practice, Muslim women perform many roles in society in the fields of religion, politics, science, medicine, education, police, the military, and other important functions."
Keyword there is modern.

"Therefore, a Muslim woman is allowed to obtain any position of leadership and authority for which she is qualified, although some positions are specific only to men such as commander of the armed forces and prayer leader."
Granted, nowadays this is more lax, but not back then.
A man and a women have distinctive roles and duties in Islamic and Arabic societies. The duty of commanding armies belong to the man.

See also http://www.beautifulislam.net/women/female_leadership_islam.htm


Do not take the handful of exceptions as a rule. Like Joan of Arc, they're a nothing but a handful of exceptions.

Thing is, this is an alt-history game. And Plus isn't designed to be completely "Historically Accurate". Also, iirc, women in general have several hurdles they have to jump through in the mod before they are able to lead armies. A blanket ban just because they're muslim would be ridiculous and, game-play wise, boring. But that's just my opinion.

 

[vukica]

Yes, it's an alt-history game. We have aztecs FFS. Glitterhoof, and now, immortals!

...

Also, satan's children, real witches, gateway to hell, and... OH YEAH, restoration of Roman Empire!

Besides, your entire argument is invalid since, you know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arwa_al-Sulayhi.

 

[Aerkhanite]

Thing is, this is an alt-history game. And Plus isn't designed to be completely "Historically Accurate". Also, iirc, women in general have several hurdles they have to jump through in the mod before they are able to lead armies. A blanket ban just because they're muslim would be ridiculous and, game-play wise, boring. But that's just my opinion.

I'm not saying a blanket ban, I'm saying it shouldn't be common, at least harder than it is for Christian and Pagans. If at all possible, because a blanket ban, well, would be correct to Islamic and Arab culture and laws.
Just because it's alt-history doesn't mean everything needs to be non-correct just "because" or "it's boring". Islam is Islam, Christendom is Christendom. If you include it, I don't see a reason not to include it fully instead of nitpicking.
Anyway, that's your opinion, and I respect it. I just posted because Vukica's response made no sense whatsoever, considering the situation (Bedouin Arab Muslim).

 

[Aerkhanite]

Yes, it's an alt-history game. We have aztecs FFS. Glitterhoof, and now, immortals!

...

Also, satan's children, real witches, gateway to hell, and... OH YEAH, restoration of Roman Empire!

Besides, your entire argument is invalid since, you know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arwa_al-Sulayhi.

Learn to read. I clearly said:

Do not take the handful of exceptions as a rule. Like Joan of Arc, they're a nothing but a handful of exceptions.

If that suddenly makes my argument obsolete, than just enable female commanders and rulers at the start for everyone considering an exception suddenly makes the exception a rule and an argument invalid.

Restoring the Roman Empire was a something that literally happened historically although not in Rome itself, and in-game. It was also a desire of Byzantium and various others.


Plus, those supernatural and most alt-history (Aztec Invasion) can be disabled, so that makes "your argument invalid". Might as well label CK2 as a fantasy game!

 

[vukica]

If that suddenly makes my argument obsolete, than just enable female commanders and rulers at the start for everyone considering an exception suddenly makes the exception a rule and an argument invalid.

There's an option for that.

Restoring the Roman Empire was a something that literally happened historically although not in Rome itself, and in-game. It was also a desire of Byzantium and various others.

LOL, now that's some alt-history there.

Plus, those supernatural and most alt-history (Aztec Invasion) can be disabled, so that makes "your argument invalid". Might as well label CK2 as a fantasy game!

Ok, it's a fantasy game. Fine with me.

In conclussion, I'm not changing that, unless ofc, it's somehow included in the official patch. IDK

 

[Aerkhanite]

There's an option for that.

So? It's disabled for a reason, is it not?

LOL, now that's some alt-history there.

The restoration of Byzantium (you know, THE EASTERN PART OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE) after the Fourth Crusade. (Byzantium is Rome, before you forget.)
The crowning by the Pope of a new Roman Emperor in the West, in other words, the Holy Roman Emperor.
The Byzantines frequently attempted reconquest of Italy.
The Sultanate of Rüm, if you count them as called themselves Rüm as an attempt to take the Roman territories and install a new, "Roman" sultanate as an attempt for a Sultanic Rome.
The Russians who, after 1453, declared themselves the Third Rome and attempted to reconquer Constantinople in the Crimean War (which might have led to the Russian Czar probably being declared Emperor of Rome). Although this is outside CK2's time frame.
The Ottomans declared themselves the successors of Rome after the conquest of Constantinople and actually landing an invasion of Italy, with the intent to take Rome (which failed).

But yeah, history is Alt-Historical.

Ok, it's a fantasy game. Fine with me.
In conclussion, I'm not changing that, unless ofc, it's somehow included in the official patch. IDK

You have responded to zero arguments, only said "lol there's fantastical elements already so who cares if this isn't correct".
If you cannot respond to reason or arguments, why bother? Why not just add playable elves and fairies while you're add it?

 

[zeress]

So?


The restoration of Byzantium (you know, THE EASTERN PART OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE) after the Fourth Crusade. (Byzantium is Rome, before you forget.)
The crowning by the Pope of a new Roman Emperor in the West, in other words, the Holy Roman Emperor.
The Byzantines frequently attempted reconquest of Italy.
The Sultanate of Rüm, if you count them as called themselves Rüm as an attempt to take the Roman territories and install a new, "Roman" sultanate as an attempt for a Sultanic Rome.
The Russians who, after 1453, declared themselves the Third Rome and attempted to reconquer Constantinople in the Crimean War (which might have led to the Russian Czar probably being declared Emperor of Rome). Although this is outside CK2's time frame.
The Ottomans declared themselves the successors of Rome after the conquest of Constantinople and actually landing an invasion of Italy, with the intent to take Rome (which failed).

You yourself already explained quite well. With the exception of the ERE the rest are at best pretenders to the Roman empire using extremely tenuous claims to either justify war, their rule, undermine the authority of another realm or all of the above.

In the case of the ERE, with the exceptions of a strong Basilious, was a shadow of the full Roman Empire and more a kin to an Empire of Greeks clutching to old glory whilst constantly fighting within their own ranks; hardly better than the "barbars" that they decry from the walls of their city. With every step forward they took they retreated three more in the next generation. This is especially true in CK2's timeframe. To even compare them to Rome proper, ie well before the split, is indeed revisionist fantasy.

All of which is irrelevant because the goals of CK2+ has always been and will for the foreseeable future be gameplay first. It's simply more interesting gameplay that after hopping through every particular hoop in question a situation can happen, then it should. The given example of the little Queen of Sheba was to illustrate that it was indeed possible for that situation to happen, given the right circumstances happen around it. It would truly be a problem if this happened constantly, but that is not the case here.

 

[Aerkhanite]

You yourself already explained quite well. With the exception of the ERE the rest are at best pretenders to the Roman empire using extremely tenuous claims to either justify war, their rule, undermine the authority of another realm or all of the above.

The Eastern Roman Empire, before the collapse was the part of the Roman Empire that didn't fall. They were the Roman Empire in any understanding of the the term. The state, laws, and government wasn't the same, but that is to be expected. Even if Justinian was the last one to actually use Latin before Greek replaced it fully. No country stays the same, certainly not after hundreds and thousands of years. Augustus's Rome was way different from Augustulus's Rome, in those 400+ years it went through a lot of change. Hell, the capital wasn't even in Rome any more!

The Pope, who had the power to crown the Western Emperor because he was Rome (at the time), crowned the Holy Roman Emperor. Sure, it wasn't the Rome, but the title of Roman Emperor and the state of the Roman Empire (in the West) was restored. Not "lolalthistory", but Charlemagne.
Mehmed II conquered Constantinople and was offered the title of Roman Emperor if they converted to Christianity by the Pope, while the Patriarch of Constantinople (after a time and, I'm sure, various threats) recognized him as Emperor of Rome (in the East). Thus, the title, and, for what the Ottomans thus deemed as true, so was the Empire, restored.
Rüm, as I said, was not Rome, but an example of another polity clinging to it's legacy, which zukica considered "lolalthistory".
Russia, after Byzantium fell, declared itself Third Rome by right of marriage with a Byzantine princess. Not "lol that's alt history".

Thus, I gave those examples simply because vukica blatantly disregards historical fact as "lol that's alt history right there" instead of a proper argument because of his own lack of intellect and knowledge. Because until the First World War and the collapse of most monarchies, this "Legacy of Rome" was a thing claimed by many.
Hell, the title of "Caesar", which translated into Czar, Keizer, and Kaiser, among others, even came from Gaius Julius Caesar's and Augustus's names. Similarly, "Imperator", which became Emperor, Empereur, etc.

In the case of the ERE, with the exceptions of a strong Basilious, was a shadow of the full Roman Empire and more a kin to an Empire of Greeks clutching to old glory whilst constantly fighting within their own ranks; hardly better than the "barbars" that they decry from the walls of their city. With every step forward they took they retreated three more in the next generation. This is especially true in CK2's timeframe. To even compare them to Rome proper, ie well before the split, is indeed revisionist fantasy.

But they were the Roman Empire. Just because a state is the shadow of it's golden age, does not make it not the same state.
That begs the question, what is "Rome proper"? The Empire of Augustus's time? Of Hadrian's time? Of Constantinius? Before or after they adopted Christianity?
The Roman legions were largely "barbarians" well before the Council at Constantinople.

To compare them to Rome, is because they were Rome. I can concede that after the Fourth Crusade and it's destruction and later restoration of the ERE, it wasn't Rome any more, but to call it simply an Empire of Greeks before that is partly true, but they were still Rome. Even if it turned from Elective Military Dictatorship to Hereditary Monarchy and adopted the language of the masses (Greek) as the official language to replace Latin.

Modern-day China is a great example. Is it a shadow of itself back during the 1500's? Is it thus no longer China?

All of which is irrelevant because the goals of CK2+ has always been and will for the foreseeable future be gameplay first. It's simply more interesting gameplay that after hopping through every particular hoop in question a situation can happen, then it should. The given example of the little Queen of Sheba was to illustrate that it was indeed possible for that situation to happen, given the right circumstances happen around it. It would truly be a problem if this happened constantly, but that is not the case here.

The argument I was trying to make, was that vikuca's response was childish considering Muslim women were disallowed from military roles and most non-supportive leadership roles.
His "that doesn't mean anything because this one exception" plainly proves, in my eyes, he just doesn't care.
The fact he disregards historical fact simply without any thoughts whatsoever, responds with nothing but "there's fantasy and ahistorical things lol why bother IDK" is just idiotic. As I said, absolutely no arguments or reason, simply disregard.

I'm all for gameplay first, don't get me wrong, but that was just stupid.

Exceptions do not make a rule. That's why I suggested a very strict no-military women with the exception maybe once every so campaigns, like in a crisis. So that for Islamic (and possibly those of Arabic cultures as well) characters the "Women can be marshals" law cannot be taken.
Because, gameplay first, but I don't see a reason not to include something as simple and integral to a religion and culture as this.

As you said, with the right situations, things like that could happen, but just like with Joan of Arc, it only happened in very desperate times.

 

[zeress]

The state, laws, and government wasn't the same, but that is to be expected. [snip]

That's the problem though how can it be possibly be the same state if the most/some/all of the things that make up the empire are no longer present? The distinction can only be drawn subjectively after all but if every piece has been taken out that made up the original thing in the first place can it truly still be considered the original thing any more? If not, at what point did it stop being the original? 10%? 25%? 51%? We are basically discussing "The Theseus' Paradox" at that point.

For all intents and purposes however the mod's stance is that the ERE in all bookmarks is a pretender Rome and certainly not the Roman Empire. When that started is irrelevant for the mod's case, only that that is the status quo for the mod.

Modern-day China is a great example. Is it a shadow of itself back during the 1500's? Is it thus no longer China?

While an interesting topic, China is a whole other thing altogether as our own Western views of the realm as an entity is already flawed from the ground up; as a very short version of it anyways. Not really a geographically relevant debate for CK2(+) so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Aerkhanite]

That's the problem though how can it be possibly be the same state if the most/some/all of the things that make up the empire are no longer present? The distinction can only be drawn subjectively after all but if every piece has been taken out that made up the original thing in the first place can it truly still be considered the original thing any more? If not, at that point did it stop being the original? 10%? 51%? We are basically discussing "The Theseus' Paradox" at what point.



While an interesting topic, China is a whole other thing altogether as our own Western views of the realm as an entity is already flawed from the ground up; as a very short version of it anyways. Not really a geographically relevant debate for CK2(+) so I'll leave it at that.

That was exactly what I was trying to say.
Anyway, this discussion was not about Rome, but about Muslim women leading armies.

 

[zeress]

That was exactly what I was trying to say.
Anyway, this discussion was not about Rome, but about Muslim women leading armies.

Indeed. As long as it's a rare occurrence the implementation is WAD and will stay as is, as it seems to be. If that is not the case however, feel free to document the spacing/findings/occurance rate of it so we can tweak it as such.