Printable View
Well, more than once I am down with just King and a princess. Wars and plague have done there work. So I was thinking that in some cases the princesses could become queens. It´s not something so unusual to the medieval times. Maybe it´s just the way I am playing but all my generals have the habit to get killed.
So, is it possible to change the game that princesses can become queens??
Oh, and it is nice to be back here :)
I think before they can become "Queens" they have to be married, and if there´s no brothers it´s most likely this fresh married guy becomes king and this way Princess becomes Queen.
i ment that princess will become a queen and she can lead armys and so ...
There were extremely few cases in history where a lady would lead an army into battle. Not to be sexist, but it is a historical reality that women rarely served in battle or advanced in rank in the medieval period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun
Although a queen may in fact be the sole ruler of a nation in some rare instances, she would be even less likely to be on the battlefield if she became queen. If a nation is so strapped for legitimate heirs to a throne that the queen becomes the sole ruler, she would not risk herself in battle.
Joan of Arc was the only female commander of an army who led troops on the battlefield, if I recall. My knowledge of history isn't what it should be, so anyone feel free to correct me.
@pizzaguy
There were actually many, the most well known besides Joan probably being Boadicea of the Iceni fighting the Romans.
http://www.lothene.org/others/women.html has a very long list by time period.
It brings up the point that there were many many laws through the ages prohibiting women from combat, and there would be no need for such laws if women did not participate in combat in the first place. Case in point: there is no law against setting your own genitals on fire because nobody does it, however there are laws against attempted suicide because people do.
An off-topic but interesting case in point in the news recently due to a grotesque event: there is no law against necrophilia in Wisconsin. A court decided that the "living or dead" clause in the rape laws only applies if the victim was killed during the assault.
The most famous in the Caucasus is Tamar of Georgia. She was one of the greatest rulers of Sarkatvelo and she ushered in a golden age for large parts of Armenia by taking them from the occupying Turkish forces.
Weird fact: Queen is one of the only words in english that is traceable back to Armenian. (Along with door) Qin came to be used by the Germans during the crusades and they brought it back with them, same goes for door which comes from toor.
Now you can amaze everyone at snobby gatherings!
@reisereise
I am humbled by the facts. I hereby withdraw my previous statement.
Excellent work!
There is one way to get a Queen, and on the battlefield too.......It involves having one of your generals, and the Arse trait line :laugh4:
Or if you face a pope in battle, and he has the "secretly female" trait. :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyGhost
I always thought the pope dressed like a queen. What's with the dress and the fancy shoes? What's he hiding in his pointy hat anyway? A bulbous bouffont? Some macadamias? Or perhaps a gazebo?
@IrAr
Cool notes about those etymologies, although Random House disagrees.
I met an Armenian at a party once, he was shocked that I actually knew where Armenia was, which i only knew thanks to RTW :grin:
if they do so and we can have little elisabeth here and there then they should also make "claiming the rights to foregin throne" in game.
I saw a news story once about some guy in Germany getting his stuck in his vaccum cleaner. Why he would shove that thing down there I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReiseReise
*Ahem*
Back on topic, please.
I like it .. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by icek
Just off the top of my head, I can also recall Margaret of Anjou, the incompetent Boudicca, and maybe Robert Guiscard's wife Sichelgaita, who rallied his troops at Dyrrhachium. Another one would be Artemisia (fought on Xerxes' side at Salamis).Quote:
Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy
I have to agree that they were few and far between, though.
Not a valid argument here. A law does not have to derive from an event. It'd seem unlikely that, given the cultural situations of the middle ages, that women combatants would be common.Quote:
It brings up the point that there were many many laws through the ages prohibiting women from combat, and there would be no need for such laws if women did not participate in combat in the first place. Case in point: there is no law against setting your own genitals on fire because nobody does it, however there are laws against attempted suicide because people do.
It has been said before, that "Behind every great man is an even greater woman" Also, it would be neat if say the queen wasn't actually a combatant herself, but her guards were (as in she loses all guards, she is automatically captured)
In the case of France, the Salic Law was invoked to pass over female heirs to the throne in order to reach the next closest male relative. A male cousin, for example, could make a claim that a royal daughter could not.
Boadicea got pwned, lol. Roma victor!Quote:
Originally Posted by ReiseReise
There was a documentary on her on the History Channel awhile back, but the acting (of course) was horrid and she came off as an annoying wench. Still was fun learning/watching just how the Romans massacred her forces using their tight formations and then rolling over the routers with cavalry. Definitely inspired me to load up RTW immediately and try to recreate it, haha
I think that at least the Byzantines should get the option to have an Empress. Its historically accurate and would make for interesting gaming.
Women Knights in the Middle Ages http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/wom-kn.htmQuote:
Not a valid argument here. A law does not have to derive from an event. It'd seem unlikely that, given the cultural situations of the middle ages, that women combatants would be common.
Thanks for the awesome link...In the meantime;Quote:
Originally Posted by ReiseReise
I would just want to point out that not speaking combatively; but managerial-ly;
I have read several accunts of Ladies giving the orders for -particularly - seige defense when their husbands were away.
I am not so much asking that the queens be battle units; only that MYSELF i dislike that the character vanishes as soon as married...
and that charm is her only trait.
Realistically; the queen/duchess/contessa/baroness (etc) is going to have quite an impact when her husband is way - even when he isn't.
And I meant merely as "second in command"; those nations that allow a queen to actually rule... well; enough said.
Vaguely relatedly, emissaries tended to be of noble families; rather than professional trained diplomats; for the best part, and to the best of my knowledge.
PS: Does anyone but me think that when the vatican chooses a cardinal he should become an "NPC"?
Many european nations have had great queens. England and Denmark have had 3 and 2 respectively in the last 800 years. That's not a lot, but still something. The danish queen Margrethe I was the founder of the Kalmar Union uniting scandinavia, so she was no smalltime player. She started out as "protector" for a boy with the right to the throne, but he didn't get his chance until she died iirc.
Maybe there should be a small chance that a queen take power - would be cool i think.
I think England has had four ruling Queens, Mary I, Elizabeth I, Ann, Victoria and Elizabeth II, five if you count Mary II who ruled with William of Orange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magraev
Anyone please feel to correct me, its been a while since I've been to a History class.:book:
Poland in the era of teutonic campaign had only queen that married later lithuanian king, made an union, the biggest kingdom in europe http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika...uania_1387.PNG and slaughtered teutons.
*******************begin thread hijack***********************
Yes! However the problem with that is then they will be as useless as the Inquisitors are. I have seen Inquisitors just stand next to heritcs (sp?) and alnost 0 piety generals and do nothing for turns on end. the Inquisitors are no longer a harbinger of doom in a black wide-rimmed hat like they used to be, and thats good......for the most part.Quote:
PS: Does anyone but me think that when the vatican chooses a cardinal he should become an "NPC"?
They used to kill anything that moved that had less a belief in God than they did, wether a man, animal....or King, and were just about unstoppable. However, with 1.2 CA made them into eunichs. They just stand there in a territory and look scary. At least with controling your own Cardinals you can spread the faith where you want it to spread and can take care of heritcs (sp again) throughout the land.
This is something that can be fixed in either the expantion(most likely) or in a pre-expantion patch of some sort.(possible)
But this is a topic for another thread....
- Phog
************************end thread hijack*******************
BACK ON TOPIC
Some great links here guys thanks.
- Phog
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phog
Well i could debate that the inquisitors are helpless even now - but it would be a debate about extent..
The thread hijack is MY fault however - my apologies.
I just cant help but think that; perhaps like a character 'seduced' by a princess; a priest who is elevated may well switch loyalties...
I'm not so sure that the cardinal would really be 'yours' to command anymore
and THIS does relate-
in the time we are discussing most of the bishops are from royal families and emissaries almost always are...
bishops rarely appear out of thin air, so to speak -
i am not saying no poor man ever was- but what i AM saying is these families
-and most of these factions really ARE families, not nations (the nation-state
is being created again IN the scope of the game; in fact - and would be a nice expansion to the game dynamics.. especially if they want to keep quoting Machiavelli..)
anyway like the disappearing princesses, I'd just like to point out that general; diplomat; priest are job options... and family members can be assigned to them - and SHOULD.
One last point:
A bishop has the same rights AND DUTIES as a baron in most European Feudal states...
this is going to turn into another thread about titles if i don't shut up...
ON TOPIC: Widows often remarried.
Some were sent to nunneries - but others went to other courts; too.
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE ALPHA FEMALE:wall:
sorry to reply to MYSELF but it got me looking and reading and learning...
Dynastic turmoil: 1314–1328
The specific events leading up to the war took place in France, where the unbroken line of the Direct Capetian firstborn sons had succeeded each other for centuries. It was the longest continuous dynasty in medieval Europe. In 1314, the Direct Capetian, King Philip IV, died, leaving three male heirs: Louis X, Philip V, and Charles IV. The eldest son and heir, Louis X, died in 1316, leaving only his posthumous son John I, who was born and died that same year, and a daughter Joan, whose paternity was suspect.
In order to ensure that he, rather than Joan, inherited the throne, Philip IV's second-eldest son, Philip V, used the rumours that Joan was a product of her mother's adultery to have her barred from the succession; a by-product of this being a tradition that women could not inherit the French throne. When Philip died in 1322, his daughters too were put aside in favour of the third son of Philip IV, Charles IV.
Thats re: princesses and inheritance.
it brings to mind 2 quick comments tho:
I almost feel we are playing a big mod of RTW - where you are probably playing one of the Roman noble houses...
the factions - are we playing a family or a nation?
(from the same article)Notably, the Hundred Years' War is seen by many scholars as a chapter in the seemingly perpetual conflict between the English and French nations, as disputes and open war were frequent, which continued as late as the Napoleonic era, and which extended well beyond Europe as the two battled for global empires. The significance of the Hundred Years' war in this context is the rise of nationalism it engendered, compared to earlier medieval conflicts.
See to ME this is relevent because i tend to play England...
Consider this:
Following a period of civil wars and unrest in England known as The Anarchy (1135-1154), the Anglo-Norman dynasty was succeeded by the Angevin Kings. At the height of power the Angevins controlled Normandy and England, along with Maine, Anjou, Touraine, Gascony, Saintonge, and Aquitaine. Such assemblage of lands is sometimes known as the Angevin Empire. The king of England, who was still a vassal of the King of France, directly ruled more French territory than the King of France himself.
so williams family is out of power by; what 1154?:oops:
I hope the Angevin "rebels" were my characters; lol.
Princesses ! ... What Princesses !
My friend has played as England up to what should be the end of the game, and I've been playing as the HRE up to 1207, and our factions have never had a Princess.
Please enlighten me. How are they spawned exactly?
:wall:
The king's (and maybe faction hair's - I'm not sure) daughter that came of age while the king is still alive becomes a princess.Quote:
Originally Posted by avery123
The muslim factions doesn't have a princesses.