Rather than the HRE, France fits the bill much better, the duchies were de facto independent countries...
- 6
- 1
- 1
-
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.
The transfer of imperium was based on the forged donations of Constantine. Not anything in the book of Daniel.
- 3
- 2
Still doesn't mean that they aren't roman. if everyone believed it which for the most part they did as it wasn't till after CK's time period that it is fully exposed as a forgery IIRC, then it is an accepted fact. Sure it may be rooted somewhat in falsehood(though as mentioned its not entirely based on this document) but if everyone believes it is true then it is.
This is also important, and for CK IMO there shouldn't be a way to create an empire as a catholic if the HRE is around. For the medieval mind the idea that there was more then one imperium, more then one empire was seen as a strange notion that didn't connect with their world view.
- 3
- 2
- 1
The new game rules work well at preventing empire formation I find
Didnt even need to be the donation of constantine, if any soldier can declare a general to be the emperor, and so legitimately march on constantinople, why cant the pope, who actually lives in Rome, declare a christian germanic to be the roman emperor, when there is no emperor, only a filicidal empress
- 2
- 1
Im just explaining the very real ideological grounding for why a bunch of medieval Germans legitimately thought they were the Roman Empire. If you don’t believe me you can just look it up. There are plenty of articles on the subject.
Don’t know why you’d be so dismissive to trying to take seriously and understand the medieval mindset
- 3
- 2
- 1
All of you are being trolls. Instead of actually trying to refute my argument!
The incorrect understanding of Daniel has nothing to do with whether we should today view the HRE as Roman! The donations of Constantine were the justification for the transfer of Roman imperium! Not any single warlord could just march in and try to usurp the rightful title of the ERE! And by usurping the title, they decided that every single Old Testament prophecy about Rome applied to them!
- 1
- 1
Ok well we’re having two separate arguments here.
1. Is about whether the HRE was the ACTUAL Roman Empire? No obviously it’s not the actual Roman Empire from the modern Historiography perspective.
2. Is about why the HRE called itself the Roman Empire?
This is where we have an actual disagreement. Yes any warlord could in fact march in and usurp the ERE, that’s literally what those same franks and Germans did in the fourth crusade…
I don’t know why you’d think a warrior class that frequently conducted private feuds and stole land from each other would be concerned with proper procedure and legalism. CK3’s feudalism and Succession law is far more formalized than it ever was in real life.
They didn’t call themselves the Roman emperors because of a piece of paper, they called themselves Roman emperors, because they held imperium (in the traditional meaning of the word) were leaders of Christendom, and medieval western Christian theology only recognized one universal empire.
The donation was just an excuse passed around by scribes. If it wasn’t that it would have been something else.
Which by the way imo the medieval theological view and historiography view of what constitutes a “Roman empire” are equally valid imo. They are both social constructs that don’t physically exist. But are still “real” (in that they effect the world) because people believe and behave as such.
- 3
- 2
Why? The HRE existing didn't stop Leonese and Castilian rulers from giving themselves an Emperor title. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator_totius_Hispaniae
- 1
Key point though is that no one else recognized their claims to be emperors. From the article you linked. . .
It doesn't really matter what you call yourself if no one else recognizes it. Its why Afonso I is considered the first monarch of Portugal despite his mother being the first person to declare themselves a monarch of Portugal because no one at the time recognized her claim to the title. An important element of rulership the game ignores is that some else has to recognize your claim to the title. Catholic monarchs obviously looked to the Papacy to get recognition* and Muslim rulers also looked to the Caliphs' recognition to legitimize their rule.
*Notably, after the 4th Crusade, the revived Bulgarian Empire also looked to the Papacy for recognition so the rulers of Catholic Europe would consider them legitimate rulers.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Of course, but I don't quite see why that's so important. The point being raised that a Catholic empire that wasn't the HRE was seen as impossible, and yet people at the time did call themselves Emperor. The fact that other Catholics didn't take them seriously would make sense as Legitimacy issues or an Opinion malus, but should still let a Catholic character create an Empire.
- 1
Now that coronations are going to be a thing, perhaps the difference between HRE and other "empires" like Hispania might be showcased by the Pope being very reluctant to crown another Emperor while HRE still exists. So you are on the Emperor tier but have to live with the negative "Uncrowned" modifier, accept crown from a mere bishop, or crown yourself Chadpoleon style.
- 1
- 1
An interesting thing is the Voltaire quote and the OP are actually connected.
Voltaire speaking about "not holy nor Roman and not an empire" was talking about Kaiser Charles IV's weak position vis-a-vis Italy, or to just copy paste wikipedia for a cursory look:
The other thing is, it was also Charles IV who turned the HRE into a series of confederations (though not in the CK3 sense):
And finally, doing away with wiki screenshots, the use of "holy" (sacrum) was a choice not dictated by the sometimes iliterate (for example, Barbarossa) kaisers, but by the scribes they hire. Scribes from Italy inserted the word holy into documents from 1157, though the political motives, if any, are difficult to assess.
Voltaire speaking about "not holy nor Roman and not an empire" was talking about Kaiser Charles IV's weak position vis-a-vis Italy, or to just copy paste wikipedia for a cursory look:
The other thing is, it was also Charles IV who turned the HRE into a series of confederations (though not in the CK3 sense):
And finally, doing away with wiki screenshots, the use of "holy" (sacrum) was a choice not dictated by the sometimes iliterate (for example, Barbarossa) kaisers, but by the scribes they hire. Scribes from Italy inserted the word holy into documents from 1157, though the political motives, if any, are difficult to assess.
- 1
- 1
I don't think the HRE, especially most of CK3's timeframe's HRE would be well served by these mechanics.
But I do think the tributary mechanic and parts of the confederation mechanic could be expanded later on to represent extremely loose vassalships and unions. Kind of like vassals and unions in EU4. Letting same tier realms be closely linked together while not being actually the same realm or actually vassals.
Vassals gaining enough leverage to become pseudo independent and show on the map as their own realm with their lieges colour and name over them could be the missing piece to allowing the break down of larger realms as they more historically did. The challenge of holding a vast empire may be forcing the most peripheral and powerful vassals to recognize their lands as a fundamental part of your crown.
For example the Abbasids may have 'autonomous vassals' in Iran during the struggle which would have a special loose contract with the caliph and be represented by sharing similar map colours and having their lieges realm name. They'd have their own 'vassal contracts' with their liege and have a lot of ways to break off. The Golden Bull could be a major late game event in game with several outcomes one of which could be a change from the HRE being more unified to having its vassals represented more like tributaries with different vassalship laws allowing them to gain some more power.
I think you could even represent ownership of distant lands or loose unions or situations like english normandy as a vassal of france by making your ruler install a separate 'representative' of your ruler to rule those lands independantly but with a special tributary/confederation like mechanic giving you a contract with them and the ability to dirrect them.
But I do think the tributary mechanic and parts of the confederation mechanic could be expanded later on to represent extremely loose vassalships and unions. Kind of like vassals and unions in EU4. Letting same tier realms be closely linked together while not being actually the same realm or actually vassals.
Vassals gaining enough leverage to become pseudo independent and show on the map as their own realm with their lieges colour and name over them could be the missing piece to allowing the break down of larger realms as they more historically did. The challenge of holding a vast empire may be forcing the most peripheral and powerful vassals to recognize their lands as a fundamental part of your crown.
For example the Abbasids may have 'autonomous vassals' in Iran during the struggle which would have a special loose contract with the caliph and be represented by sharing similar map colours and having their lieges realm name. They'd have their own 'vassal contracts' with their liege and have a lot of ways to break off. The Golden Bull could be a major late game event in game with several outcomes one of which could be a change from the HRE being more unified to having its vassals represented more like tributaries with different vassalship laws allowing them to gain some more power.
I think you could even represent ownership of distant lands or loose unions or situations like english normandy as a vassal of france by making your ruler install a separate 'representative' of your ruler to rule those lands independantly but with a special tributary/confederation like mechanic giving you a contract with them and the ability to dirrect them.
- 2
Calling yourself an emperor, and being empire tier are different things
They could just get the liege taxes owed from the duchy of normandy vassals be paid to the king of France
Letting imperial cities form leagues together, to prevent the dukes conquering and taxxing them excessively is a form of centralisation not decentralisation. The imperial circles were also a tool of centralisation by helping pool resources together. The empire after Charles IV was clearly alot better kept together than it had been during the Great Interregnum
We can see sacrum roman imperium in charlemagne's day, not just from Barbarossa on
Are you sure we get all three and not just Imperium Romanorum during Karl's time?
Not contesting this.
This is the case north of the Alps.