So Crusader Kings 2 in later years had a Corination mechanic, where you could set up your own coronation as King or Emperor. I feel something like that would work here, where the any Emperor have to have their Head of Faith do the coronation, and they can refuse if you are on bad terms with them.
You could do a series of the past Holy Roman emperors prior to the Ottonians. The period between the Carolingians and the Ottonians is interesting and often underrated. You have interesting characters like Arnulf of Carinthia, Guy of Spoleto and Berengar of Friuli who fought over the imperial crown, kinda like your Game of Thrones.
Henry the Fowler, Otto's father really was the architect of the holy Roman Empire. Charlemagne always identified as a Frank first and his title was never meant to be in herited and only was because he only had one son remaining when he died who inherited everything. The titles Prestige was primarily drawn from the appointment by God. Divine appointments was importance as this was there legitimately needed to allow the franks to become Kings rather than the power behind the throne. Landholders would build castles making Central control more difficult and results in more subdivided titles that would be passed down by blood, resulting in several power centres. Otto was in fact the first actual holy Roman emperor but legitimacy is drawn from Charlemagne
Holy Roman Empire is actually a proper if decentralized empire for most of it's existence. Aftermath of Thirty years war is when Holy Roman Empire can no longer excersize any meaningful authority but even then the title it's big deal enough for Prussia to use as an excuse dispute Maria succesion(read: conquer Silesia) and for Napoleon to actually abolish the title.
Of course it was a big deal but more from a symbolic point of view rather than an actual power/influence point of view. It was the title that represented dominance over Europe throught its ancestry from Charlemagne to Otto the great and Friedrich I Barbarossa (who was the first to actually call it Holy Roman empire btw).
Even though I would still say that the empire under Maximilian I. was also very much an empire. It's no surprise that a Frenchman can't comprehend a decentral statehood.
I'm guessing Paradox did it like in the game because the Margraves were nobles of equal status of either counts or dukes, but with the distinction of being lords of frontier provinces, so including Marches would disrupt the Baron-Count-Duke system. So they just introduces Marches as a variant of the nobility title with the special feudal contract that give you more military power and less taxes, which is pretty much accurate. Would be cool if having that kind of contract change your title from Count/Duke to Marquis or Markgraf or the equivalent, tho.
One thing I've noticed in my explorations of CK3, is a lot of those "Unlanded" deceased characters, will still appear in the Title History. Another example of this is King Saint Stephen or Istvan of Hungary. Maybe that one is a bit wonky because of the creation of Hungary, since it also has the Title History of the Confederation. I have a theory that it's a mixture of a few things causing this. In a few cases, the Unlanded King, wasn't actually King at the time of their death in actual history, so in the Title History, at their death, they were just a "Courtier". Take a look at the Byzantine Empire's title history. You'll see several Unlanded Blind and deceased characters. They were Basileus at one point in their life, but at their death, they were not. And then in some cases, it's just mistakes or errors or simplifications.
Another great video! Keep it up. As for how to make it more realistic, I think that the mechanic of coronation from CK2 should be brought back to CK3. So that first the ruler of HRE would be crowned King of the Germans and then had to meet the requirements for being crowned emperor. Like, let's say the approval of more than 50% of powerful vassals (with hooks, dread, and diplomacy) and good relations with the pope. The whole event could even include the travel to Italy for the coronation. Those powerful vassals who did not swear fealty could then rebel. I think it would make sense if a vassal of a different culture than the emperor would be less inclined to approve his coronation and be more prone to rebel. That way the military expeditions to Italy of many HRE rulers could also be reflected.
Yes I agree. I also like the idea of having to travel to Rome. That would make Heinrich IV king of the Germans in 1066 and give him the immediate objective to get the coronation as Emperor
"King of the Germans" would have to be an Emperor level title though, or it would cause all kinds of weird shenanigans with Vassals (Including the player) being able to form Kingdoms through decisions and, in case of Bohemia, by default.
@@Savaris96 You know that could be a feature of sorts. Primo, this would incentivize quick coronations. Secundo, it would show how Emperors before the Golden Bull often had to use force in order to force rebellious vassals to accept their coronation. Otherwise, there is a simple solution. Make the "King of Germany/of the Germans" note a proper title in the game but just a name swap for the Emprors before their coronation. In other words, the character always has the title of Emperor, just the name seen by the player is changed and some debuff added for not being crowned.
Antipope mechanic and casus belli to install an antipope is also something that used to be ck2, but was cut in its sequel. It works like a normal war, where you select a character which you want to be your candidate antipope. Together with coronation decisions ck2 had the means to emulate the Heinrich's rise to power
I think it's fine as a representation of the empire before the interregnum but it's perhaps a bit stable. The real holy roman empir was always fighting to keep ahold of it's most far flung territories and/or squaring down with the pope.
@yarpyarp Only technically. After the interregnum and golden bull and especially after the peace of westphalia Voltaire was right it wasn't an empire. But during the Salian Ottonian and Hohenstaufen dynasties it was perhaps the best working Catholic state. Yes it had troubles but so did every Catholic state. But CK doesn't represent states expending effort to stay stable well they either blob exponentially or death spiral.
I think Voltaire's characterization is nicely worded and nearly universally used to describe the HRE or to make an introduction about it. But I would say it's wrong and born out of spite. Voltaire really hated the HRE for multiple reasons, but that's not what I want to talk about. As is even seen in the video, the part "holy" was added around 1500 on official documents. And if we look on the time, we see that the HRE was on the forefront of and against the reformation. I think that gives it a good deal of legitimately to call itself "holy". Roman is another interesting point. Yeah the HRE never directly controlled Rome. But mostly because it saw itself as the protector of Christendom and the papacy. To conquer the Pope would be a weird way to show that. I think the HRE has the lesser claim to call itself the successor of Rome than Byzantium. But it did hold more of Italy, did indirectly control rome and if you go with the papal and western logic a somewhat legitimate claim to the title. Last is empire, I mean in nearly every definition of an empire the HRE is one. It may as feudal realm not controll all it's territory as strictly as for example France, but it's still an empire. 🤷♂️
@@degoose2447 One should understand that Medieval polities didn't have official names. Holy Roman Emperor was a title belonging to a person not a state or people. The Empire upon its creation by a personal union of the Kingdom of Germany and the Kingdom of Italy with no common institutions besides the Crown whatsoever. This like all medieval polities in Europe were not coherent nation states but rather virtually confederal entities held together by Kings
The way Paradox portrays the HRE is that the elected person becomes emperor. Actually, they became king of Germany. They had to be crowned by the pope to call themselves emperor.
I feel like it's way to easy to make the Holy Roman Empire actually Holy, Roman and an Empire in CK3. I hope they will add a DLC at some point to make it more challenging to play
I'd love a video about Matilda! I'm Italian and she's such an iconic figure here! The phrase "Andare a Canossa" as you can see exists also in Italian with the same meaning as in German.
A lot of people in the community are asking for a dedicated Byzantine DLC, but imo one focused on the HRE, coronations and Pope/anti-Pope would be far more interesting
I agree! Maybe you could even combine them in one DLC though - “European Empires” or something, focusing on the difficult situation between the two Empires as well
@@historyinbits Also honestly one giving more stuff to Rome once you restore it. I did it recently and if it didn't bother me how weird my borders were, I'd probably stop playing there(tbh did play for the achievement) as there is no interesting mechanics to it.
Being fair to paradox if they made the HRE 100% accurate our computers would all burst into flames and die trying to process all of the vassal states at once.
@0:42 I Wholeheartedly agree! I'd prefer to RP as a lower ranking noble. And that is how I came to find this channel! BUT, there don't seem to be many community resources for that style of play. Whenever I seek tips for playing CK3, I mostly only find things pertinent to Kings and Emperors, with bloodthirsty world-domination ambitions as an assumed position. Example, I'm currently "Playing Tall" with the in-game representation of one of my own fully documented ancestors*. But when I try to find tips about "Playing Tall", I'm immediately told I should instead play certain Counts that have optimum game resources such as gold mines etc. Are there any particular Discord or other forums where I won't be told "You'll never become Emperor that way." and "You're playing CK3 wrong."? (*Statistically, we are ALL cousins under the same forefathers. It's just a question of who we've actual surviving records of connection.)
The fact that this game starts in the 11th century and the holy roman empire has only crown authority 1 while france has more is ridiculous. By this time the holy roman empire was by far the most powerful and centralized christian polity in europe outside of the eastern roman empire while the french kings had hardly any authority over their vassals and only really controlled the area around paris.
9:30 You are wrong here - you can make your vassals entire region a "march" through feudal contract changes so this is represented. And duchy buildings are not supposed to represent a single building, but more the organization of the duchy hence why they are duchy buildings rather than just buildings. But yeah - you could simply make Mathilda start with a march feudal contract.
I would actually love to hear more about the laws and politics of the HRE and how they changed over time during the CK3 timeframe, especially since at some point i intend to make a mod for making HRE more fun and flavorful and I'd love to hear more perspectives on it.
The create HRE mechanic is weirdly based on Germany rather than Italy, the source of the imperial title. I'd modify that. Having different lieges for different territories is something I'd like to introduce too, perhaps with opinion penalties. Thoughts?
Idk how it was based on Italy other than the emperors to be having to move through it on their way to Rome. Receiving the Italian crown was an afterthought an often times not necessary since the coronation as "king of the Romans" was all the legitimacy they needed.
@@Siegbert85 After the breakup of the Carolingian Empire the Imperial title became associated with the Kingdom of Italy, as it was Lothair's centre of power. Thus, it was the kings of Italy who had the legitimacy to be crowned Emperors, either by acquiring the Italian throne (like Charles the Bald or Charles the Fat) or being chosen kings within Italy itself (Guy of Spoleto, Berengar I). The same happened with Otto I after he conquered the old Lombard kingdom. EDIT: it was after the Ottonids that the title became associated with the kingdom of East Francia/Germany.
@@MaylocBrittinorum Sure, that was a rather disorganized intermediate period but from the Ottonians onwards there was no separate king of Italy to ever be crowned emperor other than the king of Germany. So, if we'd want to make a rule it'd be --> being crowned king in Germany --> traveling to Rome --> getting crowned emperor. The Italian royal crown is absolutely inconsequential for that. There's been a whole bunch of emperors to never having received the Italian crown in a separate ceremony.
To make CK3 more historically accurate, some real-world mechanics should be introduced into the game. Such as time periods when a title exists but there is no title holder. An emperor-elect stayed just the King of the Romans (of Germany) until he was crowned by the Pope, so the Empire could have no Emperor for years. Also, co-ruling - crowning a son as a co-ruler while you're still alive. Well, voting for him as an Emperor with many votes kinda does the same job, but not exactly. Also, I'm not sure, if appointing a son to regent would have the co-ruling meaning.
I really hope ck3 introduces more internal politics to you realm. As at the moment gameplay seems too expansion base which not much else to work on besides.
Could you make a video about the Duchy of Swabia and all the different high noble houses that you can choose to play there, such as the Hohenstaufen, the Welfs, the House of Etichonen ( Zähringen and so on ) ? In my opinion one of the most interesting Germanic regions historically speaking. Starting as Count Friedrich I of Helfenstein and working up the ladder to Holy Roman Emperor is basically every playthrough I’ve ever did. 🤣
Since i am from swabia so maby touching on the legendary house of Hohenstaufen, which you can play as the count of Ravensburg in swabia would be nice. They brought the HRE to its golden age and they became such a great house that after their Fall the HRE collapsed into the great Anarchy. They also had a great rivalry with the house of Welf (dirty traitors they are)
@@hohenstaufen2345 As a French man i can say we are very proud of the battle of Bouvines, since we (Philippe II Augustus) technically ended the Welfs (short) rule over the HRE
@@ForeskinWillis the french house of Anjou killed the last heir of Hohenstaufen in pure greed to take sicily. While killing the welfs is very pleasing for me we still remember your trechery
One thing I don't like about CK de jure system is that Emperors are lieges of all Kings, while in medieval and early modern history that was only the case for Kings of Bohemia... It's the myth continued from CK2. Tbh CK1 was probably the most historical in that aspect
Emperor IS above King. In Medieval history however, it is rare to see actual EXAMPLES of Emperors being lieges to Kings. But practical examples and theoretical systems are two different things.
@@historyinbits btw in Italy there is a region that's still called "marche" (pronounced "markay"), roughly around the duchy of ancona in-game, referring to the region's role as border territory in the middle ages. And yes I agree they should add the mechanic in the game
@@burkcristacchio thinking about long-term historical developments, it is very telling that there was a march between northern and southern Italy, wouldnt you agree? :D
Hello, this video came in my recommended this morning. I have since watched all your other CK3 videos, and found them all incredibly enjoyable. As a history and CK3 lover, please keep this up! I have often considered making a (new) channel and doing the exact thing you are. Please keep it up. Also, I would absolutely love if you could delve into the African continent, I have recently been doing some research myself into the Sub-Sahara as well as into present day Libya/Ghana and the Kingdom of Mali, since there's very little information on the web I've had to go through reading and sources. I'd love to see what you can dig up, thanks for your work!
African Dominion: A New History of Empire in Early and Medieval West Africa - Michael A. Gomez Medieval Africa, 1250-1800 - Anthony Almore/Roland Oliver The Royal Kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhay: Life in Medieval Africa - Frederick and Patricia McKissack These are three I can recommend. For context I've been playing as Amgar Ibn Khattab of Ghat or Djado for me as I've been using Ibn Battua's legacy and Africa Plus mods to improve the region. It's so far been a very enjoyable play.
It saddens me a lot that our schools teach nothing of the holy roman empire in history classes. At first such a statement might sound weird, but I am from germany. So I wouldn't say it is that weird. While we learn a lot about greece and rome, the holy roman empire gets not a single hour of time.
@@عليياسر-ف4ن9كWhat do you mean by why? It's part of the history of our people, ofc I want to know and learn about that. Do you have a problem with that? And if so why don't you have a problem when it is about your people?
Holy roman empire was established by Henryk IV and not Charemagne, he was crowned Roman Emperor by the pope but the Holy part was added after long struggle between Henryk IV an other pope
A quick and dirty fix to help with the informal aspect of Emperor is to make having above a certain level of opinion be a requirement to be eligible to be Emperor and give the de-jure heir of the Emperor a opinion bonus with the pope, thus limiting candidates, improving the chance of succession, but also vastly improve the importance of the pope in the election of the Emperor.
@@historyinbits I forgot to mention this but it would also keep the importance of the Emperor being Catholic within the game by makeing the Emperor require to have papal approval (through opinion mechanics) something very difficult for someone of the wrong faith but not ENTIRELY impossible. Especially if its the last Emperors son and add in maybe a disaster event or something if it does somehow happen. Maybe something that gives the new non-Catholic Emperor a bonus but makes all the vassals REALLY upset, or even break off if far off and disconnected. Truly makeing in the proccess a non Catholic Emperor both a challenge and major event of note.
I love how the HRE succession is always f'ed... There WILL come a time when the emperor changes about every to every other year bcause of the law... Tbh, I just build myself up, wait until the emperor dies and I just happen to be 1st in line (due to scuffed votes if his kid is to young) and the just off him, get these 10k or 100k prestige (whatever it is) and then just get rid of it...
Probably a good inclusion of the Papacy in the HRE election for a gameplay mechanic, would be either having a good relationship with the Papacy would increase the odds of certain rulers voting for you, and having a good relationship with the pope as well would further increase the benefits. Especially with religious or theocratic aligned rulers. A another way could be if you have a low relationship with the pope and the papacy, would be that they could refuse to coronate you as the emperor, giving you a decrease in the opinion of you of anyone religious or theocratic, including the general population of HRE (Vassal Opinion and General Opinion ingame)
Most Germans remained loyal to the Pope and the Emperor. Protestant in a political sense was simply an excuse for powerful Princes to gain even greater independence
The HRE mechanics in the game are kind of placeholder, it is very likely that the historically accurate system will be added in the future; The groundwork for it is already there with the retainer system recently implemented. Wouldn't take much to utilise the retainer system to introduce a power struggle scale for the Emperor where he has zero control and zero authority to begin with and must battle and go through the retainer system events to regain power, so until then he can not conduct external wars or enforce any meaningful in game options such as tours and tournaments etc.
You shouldn’t get the title of emperor until pope agrees and you get a decision to be crowned in rome and you remain as the king of germany until that time. Making a mod for that is easy i guess.
The best portrayal of the HRE is still EU4 where they get most of it right while also balancing gameplay fun. To be fair even in ck2 it was closer to something as the feudal system was portrayed way better in ck2. While ck3 added a lot of flavour it went backwards in the way systems function to simplify gameplay. I think ck3 is currently the worst paradox title even though I play it the most. Actualy maybe its vicky 3 but yeah its only fair to give it a few more years.
@@Menno_3 I assume they mean "out of the Paradox titles that are still being actively updated". I still wouldn't give that title to CK3 (*cough* HOI4 *cough*) but it makes way more sense.
@@KaiserFranzJosefI not really, it was just as decentralized as it has always been. Ofcourse the two are vastly different in its institutions but they were both very decentralized and more of a ‘federation’ (for lack of a better term)
@@HansWurst1569 Yes really. The Holy Roman Empire in 1066 was comprised of a few dozen powerful Stem Duchies and no more decentralized than France or England. The Holy Roman Empire in 1444 was at the end of two and half centuries of rampant decentralization after the Great Interregnum and Golden Bull which saw the so called German Liberities confirmed and comprised of nearly 400 hundred statelets. They could not be more opposite points in the history of the HRE. It is like saying Rome in 117 AD was basically the same as it was in 476 AD
You want to have fun playing a vassal game? Start as the Duke of Austria and try and form the Archduchy of Austria, internal wars, political trickery and personal Prestige are necessary there, but you get Primogeniture upon Becoming Archduke and the Land is pretty good Biggest Difficulty I faced during my playthroughs as Austria was randomly becoming the Emperor which made it very difficult to continue with the pursuit of the Archduchy
Bohemia is an elector in 1066... extremly superficial research was not done or just straight up ignored, the whole Curia system is bad and doesnt represent the election process well. Ive mentioned the Bohemia part to the devs themselves and got confused faces about it
The electorate wasn't really set up yet. The first time it was electors were set up, were in the golden bull (made by Charles IV) of 1356. Since then emporers were elected.
Well thank you! We‘re working on a video on Age of Empires that will likely contain more about our theoretical framework and the academia behind historical video games
@@historyinbits The claim stands or falls with Charlemagne and Pope Leo III. Did the pope have any right to declare anyone the Roman emperor? That comes down to how legitimate the Byzantine emperor at the time was and you could make the point that she (Irene of Athens) wasn't. Geographically speaking the Carolingian Empire did contain quite a bit of what used to be the Roman Empire plus Latin being the official language and Rome being their spiritual central. Charlemagne also managed to expand the (Roman) Christian believe which was something to be expected of an emperor.
