heirless kingdom

[Oaty]

Just wondering what everyone thought on this idea only had an heirless kingdom once as the Hungarians but at least I wasnt to far into the game (guess I should have paid heed to the line that said your kingdom has 3 heirs but do not throw there lives away in battle). I woudn't even mind if every province but 1 went ronin as long as the game keeps going

[spmetla]

I'm totally for this because there was certainly not one family line of Emperors. A lot of them got their power from civil wars and the like.

Should also be able to declare an heir if you don't have a son, like Julius Caeser (sorta) and Caeser Augustus and so on.

[Frankymole]

I always wondered what the point of the following in Medieval: Total war was. It warns you when you marry your princess in another faction that if yours has no heir, the other faction will have a claim on part of it. I've never seen this work. In one game of Viking Invasion, I did have my all my provinces taken over by the Saxons, who also overran my castles and killed all my armies.. except the King, who seemed to live on and keep producing heirs. Perhaps if the faction I was playing (Welsh) had ever resurged, it might have let my King reappear on the map?

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (spmetla @ Dec. 20 2003,05:47)]I'm totally for this because there was certainly not one family line of Emperors. A lot of them got their power from civil wars and the like.

Should also be able to declare an heir if you don't have a son, like Julius Caeser (sorta) and Caeser Augustus and so on.
True, but what if you are playing a Successor Kingdom?

[mercian billman]

For a long time Roman emperors didn't have aby sons of their own and, they had to adopt a son who would become emperor. I know that Trajan, Hadrian and, others became emperors in this way. I'll try to find some more info about 'adopted' emperors.

[Catiline]

Adoption was a common Roman practice, both during the Republic when the gamer is apparently set, and in the Imperial period, whih was outside of the time frame.

there was no notion of primageniture among the Romans, that is to sday that the p[ossessions of the deceased were in principle divided equally among his male heirs. For senatorial families with several sons htias was a problem, aftre a few generations there simply wasn't enough cash to keep the senatorial census rating going unless more wealth was acquired. htis was oner reason for the aggressive stance of Rome, and for the problems of the Republic. On one hand the farmers who formed hte legions were forced to subdivide their plots and become too poor to be able to equip themselves to serve in the legions, and slowly what land they did have was consumed by the wealthier classers as they sought to increase their land holdings.

In consequence htose families with plenty of sons often adopted htem out to families who didn't have any.

[The_Emperor]

The loss of a faction leader should in my view happen like this...

The loss of your leader without an heir should produce a civil war situation, with multiple claims to the throne from ambitious leaders within your faction (rather than just split into loyalists and rebels).

You then have to back one of the candidates from the list and do away with each of your rivals by conquest or assassination (of course they are trying to do the exact same thing to every contender as well)...

The last contender left standing takes over the faction.

[The Wizard]

What if you have beaten the game, and are now Imperator? If you die heirless, will we get situations such as the civil war following JC's death? That would be cool. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

I always thought the people elected the emepror(thats were democracy came from right?or was that the greeks who invented democracy?)

Anyways,i don't think if the emperor dies,his people should elect another emperor,or am i getting this all wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Ashen]

its all very complicated and I dont quite understand it. At first it seemed to be democratic > Senators, and elected Consuls who did the leading with the senates backing, then somewhere, I think mr Caeser himself (julius) ended up as a sole leader through whatever, and I *think* that was the end of the more democratic republic and the start of the "imperial" roman age - augustus caeser and all that, heirs and so on.

Someone in the history form could describe it better im sure but it seems Pre Julius = More democractic and Post Julius more despotic. And I think Dictator actually stems from a post invented in the roman government for a sole leader but im not sure on that either hehe.

oh, I agree completely with Wizzy. it should split into royalists and several contending factions. This is true even in modern times. Look at the russian civil war for example. It was briefly in the power of democrats before lenin got a hold of it, after the royals were deposed, and royalist forces actually fought on for well over a year after the Tzar was deposed. Cant remember his name. Think it was Nicholas or Alexander (one is father, one is son, can never remember the right order). Although, true, they weren't killed for nearly a year anyways which was a bit of an odd thing to do during a coup.

Anyways. Thats my rant over. Heirless death = Royalists and several claiments IMO. best (and most fun) way to do it. That way, it could even end up creating whole new factions

[bighairyman]

i don't think the game should end, after all in the real world, the world doesn't end if the emporor dies. i wish for a mutli- faction civil war. after all, not all civil wars involved only 2 factions. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[Ludens]

Short history lesson from a non-historian:

The Athenians invented democracy, which is Greek for Power (cratos) to the People (demos).
Therefor a people's democracy is place were nobody knows ancient Greek http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

The Athenian democracy was a direct democracy. Everybody (not just elected representatives) voted on important matters. However, by todays standard, it might be a democracy, but it was not democratic.

First of all, with everybody I ment only adult, male Athenians. No slaves, no foreigners (a son of two foreigners), no women, no madmen were allowed to vote. I believe there were even more exclusion.

Secondly it had more to do with demagogy then democracy. Demagogues led the Athenian mob. It didn't matter what you were planning, as long as you could put it in a beautiful speech, you would get the vote and the popularity. The surviving speeches of "politicians" must be read to be believed. You would think that their opponents had written them down, but no, this WERE the speeches they wrote and after careful polishing, presented.

Jealousy played an important part in Athenian politics. Every year somebody was banished. This was ment to function as a safety valve, but instead a small group of men used to rid themselves of their opponents. One of the most amusing anecdotes about this is about the general Aristides:

For the banishment-election people had to write the name of the victim on a shard of a pot. One day a farmer came to Aristides and asked him to write down Aristides' name on the shard for the banishment-election, since the farmer couldn't write. Aristides asked him why he should be banished. Had Aristides done something to injure the farmer?
No, the farmer answered, but he was so fed up with hearing this Aristides-guy praised everywhere, that he him to go away.
Aristed took the shard and silently put his own name on it. At the election, he was banished.

This anecdote is from Plutarch, who wasn't there, so we cannot assume that this is true, but it gives an idea of the spirit of the Athenian democracy.

The Roman democracy is less well known, because it wasn't really one. Remeber, they called themselves a Republic (a state with no monarch). Voters where bought, and you couldn't enter the senate unless you had enough money. I don't think that the rise of the emperors changed much from the common Roman's point of view. Power just shifted from a group of rich men to one rich man. It didn't really make a difference.

18th Century (Victorian) historians were far to fond of democracy to report objectively about it. They didn't like the emperors of Rome because Julius Ceasar took power away from the senate (they couldn't get at ole' Juul himself), and they slandered Alexander the Great so much that poor man would have turned in his grave (but it wasn't worse then what the contemporary Athenians and later Romans said about him. The results of this "blackwriting" are still to be found in history books). The fact that Athene was a shadow of its former self when Alexanders father started threatning it, and that this was because Athenian supremacy had been ruined by afore mentioned demagogues escaped 18th century attention.

As you notice, I don't really like ancient Athene. But I still very much prefer a democracy to any other system.

[magnatz]

Quick and extremely simplified synopsys of Rome politics:

1. Kingdom (753 BC - 509 BC):
For its first two centuries Rome was a kingdom, probably modeled on the Etruscan system.
The king was the military commander in time of war, chief priest and judge, but he did not have absolute power - his decisions were subject to approval from two bodies, the Comitia Curiata and the Senate. Kingdom was normally inherited. After a series of unpopular Etruscan kings the Romans rebelled and brought on the Republic.
(quiz: in which ignorant Hollywood movie does a senator state that "Rome was founded as a Republic" ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)

2. Republic.
The republic was actually a elective government, and only the members of the Patrician class could held public charges (this was somewhat amended later with the introductions of Tribunes). The Senate passes laws, and two Consuls with executive powers served for one year. During wartime the two consuls could be replaced by a dictator. A number of public officials other than senators were appointed by election, however elections were often marked by violence and intimidation. Eventually the Republic degenerated in a number of civil wars that resulted in a form of de facto dictatorship (Marius, Silla, Caesar), and than in a de facto empire (starting with Augustus, who was the first to transmit the power to his heirs).

This would be in the time frame of RTW, so heirs shouldn't be that important in the game IMHO - factions didn't exactly have a lack of leaders, actually they had too many and had to form triumvirates or other forms of power sharing).

3. Empire.
Even after the demise of the republic the Romans kept pretending that the Republican system was in place, until Diocletian (380 AC) put an end to the farce by declaring Rome an Empire and himself the absolute ruler. Previous emperors had always been careful not to pose as monarchs (at least not officially), and they rather acted like some kind of empowered "first citizien". Formally the Senate still voted on laws, but the emperor could appoint senators, and anyway voting against the emperor's wishes was usually a bad career move.

Succession: the imperial throne could be transmitted to heirs, either biological or adopted, but in most cases the emperor was just assassinated and replaced by whoever had military power to backup his claims. In one instance the Pretorian Guards even auctioned the throne to the highest bidder
(the buyer didn't exactly benefit from his purchase though).

[Ludens]

The things you can learn on a forum about Total War http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .
Very informative, magnatz

[The_Emperor]

Oh yeah Roman Emperors nearly always came to power more through intrigue rather than inheritance.

Most Roman Emperors turned out to be right despots and all too often found themselves in conflict with one part of Roman Society who didn't approve of them, a good example of this is the Year of Six Emperors.

Emperor Maximinus was a peasant of Barbarian upbringing, he quickly rose through the ranks of the Roman army and he murdered the current Emperor and took the throne... But he turned out to be a right tyrant and soon everyone wanted to off him The Senate backed the appointing of two Emperors from men leading a rebellion in Africa (Gordian I and Gordian II).

Gordian II was killed and his father Gordian I was forced to take his own life... The senate then in a secret meeting hastily backed Pupienus and Balbinus to both become Emperor.

But their "secret" meeting apparently wasn't all that secret. When they tried to leave, they discovered that a mob had gathered outside the building. This mob did not approve of their choice of new Emperors, and they expressed their disapproval by pelting the Senators with rocks and sticks any time they stuck their heads out. The mob seemed intent on keeping the Senators trapped until Maximinus showed up and settled things once and for all. However, a quick negotiation determined that the mob HAD liked those Gordian fellows. The Senators discovered that there was another Gordian -- and he was there in Rome So little Gordian III, teenage grandson of Gordian I and nephew of Gordian II, was offered the position of Caesar (sort of like Junior Emperor), and the mob let the Senate out.

Fortunately for the Senate, Pupienus had several spies in Maximinus's camp. He got word to them that things were pretty dire, and they decided to take the direct approach. In the middle of the night, they charged Maximinus's tent and hacked him to death.

But "happily ever after" was not in the cards for Pupienus and Balbinus. They heard rumblings that the Praetorian Guard, the elite personal guard unit for the Emperor himself, wasn't happy with them. This annoyed Balbinus enormously, so he came up with a very, very stupid plan. He talked Pupienus into coming with him to confront the Praetorians and tell them to "cut it out". Always obliging, the Praetorians pulled out their swords and did as ordered.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Jan. 09 2004,14:09)]He talked Pupienus into coming with him to confront the Praetorians and tell them to "cut it out". Always obliging, the Praetorians pulled out their swords and did as ordered.
Famous last words

[goscho]

I think the best is to have ~ 80% chance fpr civil war, maby 60% or 70% when the dead leader was with great influence.

[Ludens]

Just out of curiosity: if you have no heir, who would you play when your leader is dead? Select your best general and make him leader?

[bighairyman]

well i think there should be a civil war, between 2 general or more. i wish for a mutli side civil war. i mean common, if u are a general thousands of miles away form the captial, and the meperor just died hierless, and u hear some general just declare independece or something, would u?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think you should be able to play on...in Shogun it made sense to end the game as you were playing as clan trying to defeat the other families, but in Medieval and Rome you will be playing as a country and countries don't go out of existance when the ruling family dies out.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Shinano @ Jan. 16 2004,23:29)]I think you should be able to play on...in Shogun it made sense to end the game as you were playing as clan trying to defeat the other families, but in Medieval and Rome you will be playing as a country and countries don't go out of existance when the ruling family dies out.
In Medieval you did play as a family: the royal family, which was not much different from the clans of the Sengoku jidai-era. The concept of nationalism had not been invented yet. When there was no heir to the thrown, you tended to end up with a civil war, for example the War of the Roses.

In Rome Total War, you will also play as a family: the three Roman houses Yes, the other factions won't have to bother with that, but the general pattern is that if the leadership is hereditary but there is no heir, it will go to the last man standing. The concept of fighting for a nation is something of the French Revolution, which declared that leadership wasn't hereditary anymore.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well in Shogun it made sense historically for the game to end...the power of the clans often ended when their leader died, take the Takeda or Uesugi. Contrast to Medieval, most of the european countries had several different dynasties, or if one king died and had no sons they could find a nephew somewhere.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Shinano @ Jan. 17 2004,16:37)]Most of the european countries had several different dynasties, or if one king died and had no sons they could find a nephew somewhere.
They usually could find at least 4 nephews somewhere. Then they began bashing each other untill there was only one nephew left.

This is known as civil war.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yup http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif That's what I'd like to see rather than game over.

[Captain Fishpants]

Adoption is in the game. Your faction will be able to adopt suitable candidates from time to time - and indeed this can be a good way of getting a suitable candidate for your heir.

The most famous historical precedents are Julius adopting Octavian, and Octavian (Augustus) in his turn adopting Tiberius. Admittedly, both of these came at the end of the Republican period. But other great families showed no hesitation in using adoption as well as marriage (and sometimes both) to create political links and/or gain the services of talented men in the coming generations.

The (nominal) end date for the game, btw, is 14AD, which marks the end of the Republican system. Augustus had never been Emperor - his power rested on the fact that he simultaneously held all the great offices of state. Tiberius merely took them all over at one fell swoop, rather than having to go through all the tedious business of collecting them one by one. The imperial 'system' was grafted onto the republic, allowing Romans to maintain their polite fiction that they didn't have 'kings'.

[The_678]

I hate it when I lose because I die