E.g. historically king of England wasn't ever a vassal of France, however, the kings held some fiefs from the king of France
Is there really no game that depicts multi-lieges?
E.g. historically king of England wasn't ever a vassal of France, however, the kings held some fiefs from the king of France
I swear this mechanic was in ck2 but when I played it recently it didn't work. I remember clear as day one of my playthroughs that utilized it.
I have played CK2 since launch and there was never multi-lieges.
>Really what does it add besides ability to flip to the opposing side as the leader of both?
It would mean that some of Aquitaine's taxes would still go to the king of France. In other words it would add more stability and less bordergore.
historically was the duke of aquitaine giving any taxes to the kingdom of france while under english influence?
The treaty after the Battle of Poitiers stipulated that the King of England was to hold Aquitaine and not owe homage to the King of France for it, so yes initially.
The multi-liege situation was complicated in real life, It only survived when both kings were willing to keep things ambiguous and not force the issue, through mechanisms that preserved both King's dignity such as doing homage for the lands when only the heir apparent. Frequently, it lead to war, the last and most notable of which was the Hundred Years War. Really, having a disputed province flip to the control of the de facto ruler while leaving a claim for the de jure ruler is a reasonable way to model things.
France under the period of dispute had few requirements on its provinces. The Kings of France had to rely mainly on his own estates for income. Any tax would be the result of laborious negotiations with towns and nobility rather than any formal tax, usually resulting in the granting (or not, as was frequently the case) of a subsidy after a general assembly. The only real requirement was the duty to provide troops to the King. Another non-negotiable duty included providing ransom for the King. Taxes such as gabelle, taille etc were levied discretionary and under heavy negotiation and only became customarily mandatory under the centralizing strains of the Hundred years War.
tl;dr no.
Duke of Aquitaine had to provide military service to the king of France
Do you know what that meant historically and do you have examples beyond William?
You could never match or outrank your liege.
That was the point, yes, stick with the Angevins and you pay less tax.
>Do you know what that meant historically and do you have examples beyond William?
Yes,
>Counts of Champagne (vassal of France) inherited the kingdom of Navarre, which lasted 1201-1305
>Dukes of Swabia (vassals of HRE), held the Kingdom of Sicily 1198-1258
>Counts of Gévauden (vassal of France) held the Kingdom of Aragon 1166-1307
wasn't there also the case (albeit slightly outside of CK's timeframe) where the dukes of Burgundy were simultaneously vassals of France and the HRE?
The duchy of Burgundy was a fief of France, while the dukes of Burgundy acquired Holy Roman fiefs in the Netherlands, so yes.
CK2 represented multiliege states (like the Angevin Empire) by using suzerainty. A sovereign king would pay taxes to a quasi-liege in the form of an equal king. However, a tiny state like Toulouse couldn't have say, both France and England as direct lieges. It can only have 1 liege or suzerain. (A suzerain, for reference, is an equal, lesser, or greater state which collects taxes without actually ruling over you.)
Thing is, how are you going to represent a lot of these things? Is William going to be a vassal in France and a king in England?
He wants to more accurately represent feudalism and its intricate laws which modern vidya cannot truly emulate. For example, the Knights Templar owned holdings throughout Europe--in HRE, France, Cyprus, etc.--and were subject to the laws of each separate sovereign. In CK2, they're represented as a country with only one potential liege. In reality, the Templars always had to be subject to the liege in the realm in which they operated; for instance, by being loyal to the HRE or the King of France. In CK2, they are instead solely loyal to the Grandmaster rather than holding these dual/multiple loyalties. In other words, while the HQ of the Templars may be loyal only to Jerusalem & Pope, the rest of the Templars' castles were also loyal to the local lords.
As a gameplay fact, this is not the case in CK2. They don't have dual allegiances like this. (In a way, this isn't too bad--the Hospitallers still claim to be a sovereign state independent of the Holy See despite the Pope being able to dismiss the Grandmaster.) I'd say the main problem with this is how exactly crown law would apply to say, the templar castle in Nuremberg. Taxes are easy to implement like this but laws aren't.
I swear I recall ck3 devs talking about it before the game was ever released, but obviously nothing came of that
No, not as far as I'm familiar, though I guess ck just does it by having it be held by england and france being able to shift it under their more direct vassalge with de jure wars
Really what does it add besides ability to flip to the opposing side as the leader of both? In ck you can just do this by joining a faction as e.g. burgundy
basically one of the many reasons i never touched ck3. it's ck2 with a bit more graphical fidelity.
CK3 is one step forward and ten steps backward
The secret-system is arguably an improvement, however, they scraped most late CK2 mechanics like Conclave, and I really don't give a frick about the 3D portraits that are ultimately underutilized.
You'd think there would be major charges, but for most part it just casualized CK2.
Are you moronic?
The kings of England WERE vassals of the king of France, as dukes of either Normandy or Aquitaine, but never as kings of England. This distinction is what is never present in CK games, if a vassal gets a title equal or superior to yours, he automatically becomes independent, whereas it was not that simple historically
>The kings of England WERE vassals of the king of France, as dukes of either Normandy or Aquitaine, but never as kings of England
That was what I literally said.
Even if I was wrong about this, this really isn't a plain issue so calling me a moron, is quite arrogant.
>Even if I was wrong about this, this really isn't a plain issue so calling me a moron, is quite arrogant.
Are you also a redditor?
most people throughout history haven't liked being called morons by people who are even dumber than them
>gets proved wrong
>REDDIT REDDIT REDDIT out of NOWHERE
Kek. Obsessed.
>Obsessed
troony detected
you can have multi lieges in ck2 for example, if you are a count under someone and hold a barony thats a vassal of a count in another realm
Then that barony is 100% underneath the other count, and the count who holds the province doesn't have full province control
That's not multiple lieges
Sorry, I should be more clear
Then that barony is 100% underneath you*
why could paradox add that when they could make ebin incest WC viking blobs
How about a system that properly models the dynamic between the various noble titles? For example, you'll often see that once the King of England has sufficient money, he will create all the possible duchies and hand them out to his vassals. In reality, duchies, iirc, came with great prestige, which could often threaten the monarch. In OP's image, for example, we see that the County of Toulouse, despite being on of if not the largest subdivision of the French Kingdom, is only a county, while Burgundy is a Duchy. In a CK2 game, the King of France would likely give the count of Toulouse the Ducal title near immediately.
duchies in ck2 (don't know about ck3, prolly the same) are glorified geographical regions
the title "duke" by itself is meaningless, it just represents a legal claim to annex or vassalize provinces within a specific area. without at least 1 county you even automatically lose your "duke" title, only counties are tied to land, duchies are abstract
at some point they added some arbitrary rule that you cannot progress in technology unless you are at least a duke, plus being a duke gives you a +25% levy bonus on your capital county
that's just about the only point of being a duke in ck games
even areas that were historical counties like flanders are changed into dukedoms, to fit the arbitrary and static rule of upgrading from count > duke > king > emperor
Everything is meaningless, in EU4 a duchy can vassalize an empire because it is just nominal. In CK2 duchy, king, and emperor virtually operate the same, only separated by their de jure region, which itself such horseshit. Kingships and emperorship mean nothing, they are just things you acquire when you blob to a certain region.
Historically, there were essentially two types of kingships, local and global.
Kings in Ireland are an example of local kingship, these were regional sovereign rulers who were recognized as kings by the locals, but for all foreigners, they were indistinguishable from sovereign dukes.
In contrast, to the global kingships, which were chartered by universal authority (e.g. pope, HRE, caliph, ERE) . Those had nothing to do with de facto land ownership, and they were difficult to obtain
The evolution of the medieval period essentially saw the local kings becoming illegitimate, allowing anybody to conquer them, meanwhile usurping a global kingdom could result in an international coalition.
CK subscribers local kingship, which is a shame.
>meanwhile usurping a global kingdom could result in an international coalition.
this is your brain on modern politics
Pretty much completely correct, and you can even extent this to titles like emperor too. Once you got respected enough you earned recognition far before you ever said it yourself; on the other hand many kings were just self-proclaimed and no one else saw them as such.
However
>meanwhile usurping a global kingdom could result in an international coalition.
This is exclusively for the EU4 timeframe, right?
>This is exclusively for the EU4 timeframe, right?
I guess international is kind of wrong word, more like global authority sponsored deposing efforts.
E.g. Antipope crowned Roger II as the first king og Sicily, so the pope got Emperor Lothair to invade Roger II because he was illegitimate
Or Manfred usurped Sicily from his Swabian cousin, so the pope paid a French prince to invade Sicily.
Both during the timeframe
>without at least 1 county you even automatically lose your "duke" title, only counties are tied to land, duchies are abstract
I've seen barons hold ducal titles, but I think most of the time a baron who gets a duchy will automatically usurp his county (but not the capital holding of that county)
Counties are also pretty abstract once you realize they're actually collections of baronies that might not even include baronies.
I think that Grey Eminence is planning something along those lines
The funny thing is this is exactly how bishops and pope work, they have the code to do it. They just don't care.
How would you communicate this on a map without making it look ugly or busy?
Stripes or some other hatch?
It's almost like liege law was simply a series of different contracts, rather than "this entire modern nation belongs to one king"
>"this entire modern nation belongs to one king"
There is no such thing as "liege law". The core idea of vassalage is that monarch leases part of their land to a vassal in exchange of obligations.
>leases part of their land to a vassal in exchange of obligations
A contract, backed by law
Dunno why you pretended to disagree with me
Probably one of the biggest problems with EU4 is the centralization of the state is barely modeled, France 1453 plays the same as France 1789 with more money and manpower.
If you think about it eu4 gameplay actually makes more sense for ck2/3 time period and vice versa with all the centralizing options and intrigue that ck has