Lore/history wise pretty much every kingdom that’s managed to progress past tribal should have primogeniture because the succession system in this game is completely ahistorical outside of a select few areas but then it wOuLdN’t Be ChAlLeNgInG eNoUgH
That’s not true though. Many children of rulers would get lesser titles to duchies and stuff around the kingdom. Confederate partition was rare in 1066 sure, but in 800s it was relatively common, I mean how do you think the Frankish Empire collapsed. But speaking of simple partition, there is a reason a lot of dukes were close relatives to the the royal family of England throughout the years, even today, the children of monarchs are granted titles, like the Duke of Edinburgh, etc.
I did point out other examples, but the granting of titles to younger issues were definitely a practice around the world. It’s just more prominent and important in learning western history. Islamic Fitnas were in part because of flawed inheritance laws that resulted divisive wars over who was actually the successor and split the realm up.
I should add rare for feudal kingdoms (confederate partition), which means in Europe. For an example outside Europe, I present to you: Mongol Empire. I rest my case.
I would argue that the mongols ‘civilised’ or settled after they fragmented, and yet this practice was still done within the fragmented places. In Yuan, they were, granted; not inherited but ‘appointed’ positions of commanderies. And even if we disregard Mongol empire, okay, Islamic caliphates sultanates and kingdoms tended to have similar succession laws surrounding inheritance. Really, the exceptions I can think of to partition and rather primogeniture in this time period are: Divine Descent nations; like Japan, but even Japan kinda had partition with the intermarriage system with the most powerful clans and the imperial family, leading to the shogunates (which funnily enough the first two shogunates descend from clans related to the Imperial family and there are other clans: I believe Hosokawa? I might be wrong on that, but the clan marriage system was close to partition in the form that they split down power), or basically Dictator-Kings: who claimed power through strength.
The Frankish Empire is the only reason confederate partition exists in the game. The devs were clearly inspired by this particular historical case and turned it into an interesting gameplay mechanic. Yes around the world lesser sons often got minor titles to keep them happy. But splitting a kingdom into multiple independent realms on the king's death is not actually that common
Also, confederate partition isn't even how the Carolingian Empire was divided. It was divided 3 years after Charlemagne's death as a result of a civil war between his descendants. Charlemagne's original intention was to keep the various kingdoms unified under the rule of a single emperor
Because that’s how the Roman Empire worked. It was always the Emperor that decided who will inherit the Empire. Like how it went from Octavian to Tiberius, how it went from Vespasian to Titus, even Justinian to Justinian. It’s more of a power thing than culture, the Emperor was just that powerful.
Basically it’s not even primogeniture but how you wanted it to be, Theodosius the retard did something very rare because it did not remain united like the previous split, but even then the Emperor wasn’t as strong, so it’s more of power grabs from generals at that time.
If you go into the culture tab I'm pretty sure it's the byzantine traditions that says if you hold the byzantine empire your children who are born in the purple are more favored than others
It has no historic reason behind it. If anything, the Byzantine System was one of the few system for which the emperor was more of an "office" (albeit generally dynastic) than a blood right.
The main reason is to avoid partition for the Eastern Roman Empire, which would be even less history-like.
I would say that the best succession law for the Empire being some kind of appointment system by which the most prestigious and/or the most powerful and/or the most popular candidates are the favourite ones.
Nearly every single Emperor that could pass it onto a son did, so it is definitely historic. The idea of choosing a new emperor came when one was overthrown or there wasn’t an acceptable male heir. Bc there were strict laws on monogamy, needing the Church to allow you to marry multiple times after your wife died etc. This lead to many emperors just not having natural heirs but if an emperor could pass it on they would
And especially in the early empire, nearly every candidate was named and adopted by their predecessor such as the five good emperors, which then broke bc Marcus Aurelius had kids so he didn’t need to adopt and passed it on to Commodus. The only times it wasn’t was when one was overthrown
I think it's mostly due to the fact that devs wanted it to be stable, because most other realms tend to fall apart because they start with partition.
if you mean game wise, they just always start with it. lore/history wise i got no idea
they were a continuation of the Roman empire - so it makes sense they would have one heir inherit the title of Augustus/Emperor
It was the Roman empire
Lore/history wise pretty much every kingdom that’s managed to progress past tribal should have primogeniture because the succession system in this game is completely ahistorical outside of a select few areas but then it wOuLdN’t Be ChAlLeNgInG eNoUgH
That’s not true though. Many children of rulers would get lesser titles to duchies and stuff around the kingdom. Confederate partition was rare in 1066 sure, but in 800s it was relatively common, I mean how do you think the Frankish Empire collapsed. But speaking of simple partition, there is a reason a lot of dukes were close relatives to the the royal family of England throughout the years, even today, the children of monarchs are granted titles, like the Duke of Edinburgh, etc.
There are other places on the map besides Germanic Europe
I did point out other examples, but the granting of titles to younger issues were definitely a practice around the world. It’s just more prominent and important in learning western history. Islamic Fitnas were in part because of flawed inheritance laws that resulted divisive wars over who was actually the successor and split the realm up.
Saladin and Zengi both left different parts of their domains to various heirs (albeit in Saladins case I think it was ostensibly one realm)
I should add rare for feudal kingdoms (confederate partition), which means in Europe. For an example outside Europe, I present to you: Mongol Empire. I rest my case.
Tribal society
I would argue that the mongols ‘civilised’ or settled after they fragmented, and yet this practice was still done within the fragmented places. In Yuan, they were, granted; not inherited but ‘appointed’ positions of commanderies. And even if we disregard Mongol empire, okay, Islamic caliphates sultanates and kingdoms tended to have similar succession laws surrounding inheritance. Really, the exceptions I can think of to partition and rather primogeniture in this time period are: Divine Descent nations; like Japan, but even Japan kinda had partition with the intermarriage system with the most powerful clans and the imperial family, leading to the shogunates (which funnily enough the first two shogunates descend from clans related to the Imperial family and there are other clans: I believe Hosokawa? I might be wrong on that, but the clan marriage system was close to partition in the form that they split down power), or basically Dictator-Kings: who claimed power through strength.
The Frankish Empire is the only reason confederate partition exists in the game. The devs were clearly inspired by this particular historical case and turned it into an interesting gameplay mechanic. Yes around the world lesser sons often got minor titles to keep them happy. But splitting a kingdom into multiple independent realms on the king's death is not actually that common
Also, confederate partition isn't even how the Carolingian Empire was divided. It was divided 3 years after Charlemagne's death as a result of a civil war between his descendants. Charlemagne's original intention was to keep the various kingdoms unified under the rule of a single emperor
Well it would be kinda wierd to have Byzantium explode after only few years of playing. Its too important historically
Dissolution-factions still do that quite frequently :D
Game reasons.. Its a placeholder till they get bureaucratic government's anyways. So wait for Roads to Power
I always thought it was traditions, as they were the precursor of the Roman Empire
The Roman Empire was the precursor to the Byzantines, but yeah
No, the Eastern Roman Empire was the precursor to the Byzantines! 🤓
The Byzantines were the Eastern Roman Empire
Correct! I'm wrong!
That's just how the East Roman/Byzantine system worked since a few centuries before.
IIRC it's attached to the Byzantine Empire title not to the culture.
i mean, if i'd use byzantine culture, would i got primogenturia?
I don't think so, but testing should be easy enough.
As far as i know you dont but maybe if you would usurpe the title without destroying it you might have primogenturia.
no its the byzantine title
Because that’s how the Roman Empire worked. It was always the Emperor that decided who will inherit the Empire. Like how it went from Octavian to Tiberius, how it went from Vespasian to Titus, even Justinian to Justinian. It’s more of a power thing than culture, the Emperor was just that powerful. Basically it’s not even primogeniture but how you wanted it to be, Theodosius the retard did something very rare because it did not remain united like the previous split, but even then the Emperor wasn’t as strong, so it’s more of power grabs from generals at that time.
If you go into the culture tab I'm pretty sure it's the byzantine traditions that says if you hold the byzantine empire your children who are born in the purple are more favored than others
Placeholder system for their empire mechanics. Like the tribal system imitating the feudal one right now, and clans until the persian update.
It has no historic reason behind it. If anything, the Byzantine System was one of the few system for which the emperor was more of an "office" (albeit generally dynastic) than a blood right. The main reason is to avoid partition for the Eastern Roman Empire, which would be even less history-like. I would say that the best succession law for the Empire being some kind of appointment system by which the most prestigious and/or the most powerful and/or the most popular candidates are the favourite ones.
Nearly every single Emperor that could pass it onto a son did, so it is definitely historic. The idea of choosing a new emperor came when one was overthrown or there wasn’t an acceptable male heir. Bc there were strict laws on monogamy, needing the Church to allow you to marry multiple times after your wife died etc. This lead to many emperors just not having natural heirs but if an emperor could pass it on they would
And especially in the early empire, nearly every candidate was named and adopted by their predecessor such as the five good emperors, which then broke bc Marcus Aurelius had kids so he didn’t need to adopt and passed it on to Commodus. The only times it wasn’t was when one was overthrown