Why no Queen's?

I think its sexiest that in Medieval Total War we don't have Queens!

In England during the time of the game period we had Matilda as Queen of England, I think that the succession in MTW basically sucks. In Rome i loved the idea of choosing my successor, Maybe this is unrealistic as i know during those times they had basic laws so that a son or daughter took the throne, But why if my King only has a daughter can't see become Queen?

Blowing in the wind? Or fair point to enhance our gaming experience?

Good point, but I guess it is b/c of the battlefield charkter animation....then on the other hand, I think we have Jeanne D'Arc in the game? Do we?

For a lot of factions, a reigning queen (as opposed to a queen consort) would not have been possible.

The French started it in Christendom with the so-called Salic Law (which debarred women from inheriting a throne) and the idea was picked up in one form or another by many of the other states of the time.

I'm pretty sure that Islam debars women from ruling men but whether that is Quranic or just tradition, I'm not sure. There'll be someone on these forums who could tell you, I guess.

Finally, there were some states with reigning queens but the example you gave shows the problems inherent in that. Matilda's rule was opposed by an enormous number of her subjects - hence her civil wars with Stephen. After Matilda, the English didn't have another reigning queen for what, four centuries?

I think CA probably realised that reigning queens were a bad idea. Some factions simply couldn't have them and those that could might well be faced with constant civil war until her majesty popped her clogs.

And there has to be change to capture/kill enemy faction leader in the battlefield.

"In England during the time of the game period we had Matilda as Queen of England"

Empress Maude? The one that got disosseseed by Stephen of Blois and spent many years fighting back and forth with him and wound up losing? I think she ruled for all of one year, so her example, at least, tends to point to the contrary direction: a woman was unlikely to remain at the throne with so many ambitious nobles scattered about the landscapes.

Matilda,
Jane
Mary 1
Elizabeth 1

But yes they were few and far between. Anyway until Mary 1st if the Queen married then the man became King and therefore...

Lots of good points here.
I don't think that Matilda is actually recognised as being on the monarch's list of England but I understand where you're coming from.
I think the best option would be to have the inheritance system changed so that if the only surviving family member is a princess, she immediately marries and her husband becomes the new monarch.
Do you think this would be easy to implement?

Whilst they do this, they could also add back in the option to choose your heir. It constantly bugs me that my 24 year-old King has a 28 year-old adopted heir because no-one is havng babies.

OT - but I always refuse adoptions and Man of the Hour and never really have a great shortage of generals. Even if you end up with a load of daughters you still marry them and get your generals...

The Byzantine Empire is the only exception to the rule. They had many reighning Empresses and some were quite the rulers! Irene for Example had her son Blinded and ostracized just so she could keep being Empress!

Just another question to ponder: Should our theoretical queen be able to lead a field army?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReiseReise

Just another question to ponder: Should our theoretical queen be able to lead a field army?

---

I wouldn't think so. Thats what Generals and princes are for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heraklios

The Byzantine Empire is the only exception to the rule. They had many reighning Empresses and some were quite the rulers! Irene for Example had her son Blinded and ostracized just so she could keep being Empress!

---

This is very true. It would be a nice feature to have...

I would really like seeing the ability to change succession and include queens. Similar to Crusader Kings, where one could choose from a catalogue of succession laws (namely Salic Primogeniture (firstborn son, firstborn son's firstborn son, firstborn son's second son etc.), Semi-Salic Primogeniture (first son of the firstborn child's line, second son of the firstborn child's line...), Gavelkind (division of titles), electoral law, and some other law I don't recall).

M2TW, according to these models at least, is using a Semi-Salic model, as far as I can tell, which allows the succession to pass through female dynasty members (i.e. the husband of the lord's daughter can become king), so I could well imagine the introduction of female successors.
It really would be the smallest slight to historic accuracy CA ever committed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heraklios

The Byzantine Empire is the only exception to the rule. They had many reighning Empresses and some were quite the rulers! Irene for Example had her son Blinded and ostracized just so she could keep being Empress!

---

The Byzantine Empire did not have "many reigning Empresses" at all. They had four reigning empresses out of 90-odd monarchs in over a millenium.

Of the four, the first Theodora was a regent for two years and did not reign in her own right. Irene was deposed after a reign of just five years. Zoe had to marry twice and adopt a son in order to maintain her presence on the throne; in the end, she was deposed too, as far as I remember. Her sister, Theodora, ruled on her own but only for a year.

I don't think the Byzantines can be counted as exceptions to this rule any more than the English (Matilda), the Spanish (Isabella) or anyone else. Ruling queens in medieval times were few and far between and there were numerous reasons for this. They might make the game a bit more interesting but they wouldn't make it much more accurate.

As for fighting in battle, check out Sichelgaita, the wife of Roger de Guiscard (Norman ruler of Apulia). On one occasion (battle of Dyrrachium?) she fought in full armour and rallied the Norman army when Roger and his famous son, Bohemond, were unable to.

She may not be able to rule a faction but I wouldn't mind having her heading up a stack of Norman Knights.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diotavelli

I wouldn't mind having her heading up a stack of Norman Knights.....

---

:laugh4:

No? I'll get me coat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diotavelli

The Byzantine Empire did not have "many reigning Empresses" at all. They had four reigning empresses out of 90-odd monarchs in over a millenium.

Of the four, the first Theodora was a regent for two years and did not reign in her own right. Irene was deposed after a reign of just five years. Zoe had to marry twice and adopt a son in order to maintain her presence on the throne; in the end, she was deposed too, as far as I remember. Her sister, Theodora, ruled on her own but only for a year.

I don't think the Byzantines can be counted as exceptions to this rule any more than the English (Matilda), the Spanish (Isabella) or anyone else. Ruling queens in medieval times were few and far between and there were numerous reasons for this. They might make the game a bit more interesting but they wouldn't make it much more accurate.

As for fighting in battle, check out Sichelgaita, the wife of Roger de Guiscard (Norman ruler of Apulia). On one occasion (battle of Dyrrachium?) she fought in full armour and rallied the Norman army when Roger and his famous son, Bohemond, were unable to.

She may not be able to rule a faction but I wouldn't mind having her heading up a stack of Norman Knights.....

---

Yeah but Irene Ruled FOR her Son Constantine for most of his Reign. The point I was trying to make is that Byzantium had no Salic law and therefore IS the exception to the Rule of only male Monarchs. And by "Reigning Empress" I meant an Empress active in State Policy not the official "head of state"

There were many kings who were figureheads while the actual ruling was done by uncles, brothers, mothers, councillors, queens, ambitious nobles, etc, either because the king was too young or just easy to push around.

Surely you don't insist the system should always represent the 'power behind the throne' as the actual titled ruler of a country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heraklios

Yeah but Irene Ruled FOR her Son Constantine for most of his Reign.

---

Ruling as a regent is not the same as being the titular head of state. Medieval regents included Margaret of Anjou, Catherine de Medici and Mary de Guise to name but three - ruling in England, France and Scotland respectively, proving this was not something that can be linked with one nation only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heraklios

The point I was trying to make is that Byzantium had no Salic law and therefore IS the exception to the Rule of only male Monarchs.

---

England and France did not have the Salic Law. The whole basis of the Plantagenet claim to the French throne was that the Salic Law didn't apply in England and shouldn't be applied in France either. Byzantium therefore is NOT "the exception to the Rule of only male Monarchs".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heraklios

And by "Reigning Empress" I meant an Empress active in State Policy not the official "head of state"

---

As Ulstan points out, many queens (and others) ruled de facto if not de jure. Edward I ruled de facto in the later years of Henry III's reign but the game doesn't reflect that - and I don't really see how it could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diotavelli

For a lot of factions, a reigning queen (as opposed to a queen consort) would not have been possible.

The French started it in Christendom with the so-called Salic Law (which debarred women from inheriting a throne) and the idea was picked up in one form or another by many of the other states of the time.

I'm pretty sure that Islam debars women from ruling men but whether that is Quranic or just tradition, I'm not sure. There'll be someone on these forums who could tell you, I guess.

Finally, there were some states with reigning queens but the example you gave shows the problems inherent in that. Matilda's rule was opposed by an enormous number of her subjects - hence her civil wars with Stephen. After Matilda, the English didn't have another reigning queen for what, four centuries?

I think CA probably realised that reigning queens were a bad idea. Some factions simply couldn't have them and those that could might well be faced with constant civil war until her majesty popped her clogs.

---

I can assure u that islam says that man and woman are equals and womans should be treated same as the man. It was (no offence) in the middle eastern culture that the man rules and for a long time it stayed in that wat. In pre- islamic turks woman was the equal of man and generally in the absence of the khan the queens ruled the empire. After the acceptence of islam by the turks the womans authority in government was no longer the case but many ottoman rulers were inflenced by their wifes and when the sultans were too young their mothers ruled behind the curtains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diotavelli

Ruling as a regent is not the same as being the titular head of state. Medieval regents included Margaret of Anjou, Catherine de Medici and Mary de Guise to name but three - ruling in England, France and Scotland respectively, proving this was not something that can be linked with one nation only.



England and France did not have the Salic Law. The whole basis of the Plantagenet claim to the French throne was that the Salic Law didn't apply in England and shouldn't be applied in France either. Byzantium therefore is NOT "the exception to the Rule of only male Monarchs".



As Ulstan points out, many queens (and others) ruled de facto if not de jure. Edward I ruled de facto in the later years of Henry III's reign but the game doesn't reflect that - and I don't really see how it could.

---

The Eastern roman Empire was an Empire and was ruled by an Emperor and if that Emperor wished he Could Appoint a "co-Emperor" to share Power with. In some cases (Like Justinian and Theodora) the Empress was raised to the "Augusta" rank and had Head of state Status. That is what I mean by reigning Empresses. And Byzantium had this View since the Beginning of the so called "Dark ages" of Western Europe (fall of Rome to 1000 but debatable) The Monarchs you Mention reigned from the mid 15th century to the late 16th century. Hardly "Medieval" (at least in my opinion) The Byzantine Empresses could have held "Augusta" status since at least the 6th century.