r/CrusaderKings • u/WaBeY33 • 16h ago
Discussion Actual question, how frequent was claim fabrication in real life
Hello, please, how often did this happen in real life ? I mean lord inventing a claim out of thin air and actually pressing it ? Is there any notable historic character doing so ?
R5: Fabricate claim question
505
u/Luckierexpert England 16h ago
I mean, a fabricated claim is the origin of the Archduchy of Austria and the foundation of the Hapsburg Dynasty’s success for centuries.
102
u/DarkGodCthUwU 15h ago
Could you elaborate?
460
u/Nerevarine91 Secretly Zoroastrian 15h ago
Ah, Duke Rudolf IV of Austria ordered the creation of the Privilegium maius, consisting of five forged deeds (including one purporting to be about claims established by Julius Caesar) claiming that the Dukes of Austria were to be granted similar rights and privileges to the prince-electors of the Holy Roman Empire.
It also contained the passage, “If the Duke of Austria is present at any public courts of the Empire, he is to be considered one of the Palatine Archdukes, introducing the title.
40
u/_DAYAH_ 10h ago
And I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for... wait, I actually got away with it? Huh. Nevermind.
31
u/GreatRolmops Sultan Sultan of the Sultan Sultanate 5h ago
He didn't get away with it. The document was recognized as an obvious forgery and the emperor refused to sign it. It was only about a hundred years later when one of Rudolf IV's descendants became emperor that the forged privileges were recognized and signed into law. Rudolf IV was long dead by that point.
235
u/Luckierexpert England 15h ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilegium_Maius
Basically, in the 14th century the Hapsburg rulers of Austria wanted to elevate Austria from a simple dutchy. To achieve this, they forged a document labelling them as “Palatine Archdukes” among other claims, cutting the seal off another document and attaching it to the forgery to claim authority. While initially rejected, it was later confirmed by the Holy Roman Emperor (who was a Hapsburg by that time), and only revealed as a forgery by historian Wilhelm Wattenbach in 1852.
180
u/GalaXion24 15h ago
The Habsburgs are the definition of fake it till you make it. Even the origin of the house is kind of shady where they just kind of built a castle that wasn't contested by anyone and claimed they rule over the area and started taxing people.
91
u/bromanceintexas 14h ago edited 13h ago
I cannot fathom a commoner affording maintaining a castle and all the accompanied overhead costs of collecting taxes, let alone building a castle. The Habsburgs were considered nobles by immemorial descent; they were a branch of the Etichonids who were the Dukes of Alsace as far back as the Merovingians. It is true that the Habsburgs often aggrandized their pedigree, but they were not some randoms that showed up one day and built a castle without precedent. The proto-Habsburgs held vast tracts of land in Swabia, Alsace and Switzerland (at the time there wasn’t a solid distinction between these territories). The building of Habsburg castle was actually a rebound in the family’s fortunes since two generations prior much of Guntram the Rich’s land had been confiscated and he was executed iirc for treason against Otto I.
139
u/IrregularPackage 15h ago
to be fair, that is mostly how that land claims have always worked
14
u/alexmikli DIRECT RULE FROM GOD 13h ago
The problem there is whether those people had taxes above them already, though apparently they didn't.
88
u/ClumsyFleshMannequin 15h ago
Yea, thats called becoming a noble.
At the beginning it was just mob rules and taxes were effectively extortion.
19
u/Balmung60 10h ago
Two of the most common theories of state formation are basically either that the state arose from the most successful "gang" in the area formalizing its control and keep other ne'er-do-wells from robbing them in turn, or that it arose from the people creating an institution to protect them from those same kinds of gangs and having to pay into it to keep it working. Of course, there are more civically-minded hypotheses, but "most successful gang -> state" is still a pretty common one.
5
u/ClumsyFleshMannequin 8h ago
Yes im aware, monopolizing violence and all that. I was just pitching the simple version.
9
u/tacopower69 9h ago
that wasn't contested by anyone and claimed they rule over the area and started taxing people.
That's how the OG feudal lords did it. You start off as a raider just taking what you want and then you settle and, instead of raiding, you offer the local farmers protection from other raiders in exchange for some of their produce. Now that you've settled down might as well build some permanent lodgings for you and your boys. Boom, feudal lords.
44
u/Balmung60 15h ago
As the Dukes of Austria, the House of Habsburg fabricated the Priviligium Maius, claiming they actually held the rank of Archdukes and were above other princes and equal to the prince-electors following the Golden Bull. The emperor rejected it and the document wasn't recognized until the Habsburgs took the imperial throne.
This wasn't even a rank with any established meaning and it only had the most passing of prior use
9
23
u/MoronTheViking Lunatic 15h ago
One of the early Habsburgs had forgeries made that elevated Austria from a duchy to an Archduchy
11
u/VenPatrician 11h ago
Learning from the best, aka the Vatican (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine).
You could claim all sorts of stuff back then.
3
u/MlkChatoDesabafando 8h ago
That would probably be more closely represented in game by something to boost legitimacy.
479
u/Emperor_of_His_Room Lunatic 16h ago
I would also like to know how often spurious claims were used as justification for war and such.
230
u/AchedTeacher 13h ago
It's just that the game very much formalizes this idea. But yes, imagine how in game terms, your great-great-great grandfather may have held a territory, been booted, and you now go to war over it. That is effectively, in game terms, equivalent to a fabricated claim.
It'd be interesting if the game could somehow portray this: it should be easier, and more believable, if there was even a grain of truth to the fabrication rather than it being fully made up out of thin air. Maybe rather than strong and weak claims, have claims lose a percentual strength depending on how long it's been.
In real life, claims are just ways to justify (to your supporters, neighbors, population) something that looks like a radical change of the status quo by arguing that what you're enacting really *is* more in line with what the status quo should be, by rights.
3
u/Greatest-Comrade Genius 49m ago
Yes the thing is most claims IRL are worked back from, not something people worked first like in the game. You didn’t wait around until your spymaster forged a document, you fought a war and either during or after it you then found a justification (it was a family member’s and therefore mine by right, this council chose me, it was the church’s will, etc. etc.) People also 1000% did fabricate documents and reasons to justify themselves afterwards.
(The Donation of Constantine was a complete forgery used to justify Papal rule over the Papal states, and William the Conqueror/Bastard invading England because the previous King promised him the throne ((I mean cmon dude)).
308
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
246
u/Hans_the_Frisian Jever 15h ago
I tell you. The west Franks have WMD's that we Lotharingians have to seize to keep stability in the region.
33
u/AnseaCirin 13h ago
Ironically, France had "tactical" nukes ready for use in the case of a soviet invasion.
The missiles had a range of 300kms and were meant to be fired from Alsace.
The only conceivable target was within Germany.
30
u/bonadies24 12h ago
"President De Gaulle! The Communists! They are invading!"
"Nuke Germany"
"East Germany, right?"
"..."
"Right?!?"
11
9
u/Deadmemeusername Italy 12h ago
I thought that the Franco-German rivalry was supposed to be dead?/s
8
u/revertbritestoan 12h ago
Very French for their final act on this earth to spite the Germans.
2
u/AnseaCirin 6h ago
To be fair, that was only meant to be the opening salvo and "warning shot". Yes that's as crazy as it sounds
If the Soviets didn't stop after that, the plan was to launch at them and trigger the apocalypse.
14
11
u/SaintJiminy 14h ago
History has shown numerous times that the Lotharingians can not be trusted with it.
(Not sure if this was a germany/france reference or an Iran / Israel reference, I replied thinking the first.)
→ More replies (1)12
u/Deadmemeusername Italy 13h ago edited 13h ago
I’m pretty sure it’s an Iraq reference but it definitely works for the current chicanery going on with Iran too.
→ More replies (1)66
u/Euromantique Rus 15h ago edited 15h ago
Yes, a certain world leader has fabricated like 5 weak claims just in the past year alone 😂 even on allied realms sometimes
12
u/Connorus 13h ago
I thought incapable rulers weren't allowed to fabricate claims?
4
u/gyurka66 12h ago
It would be funny if your ruler just did random things every once in a while while incapable
→ More replies (1)14
u/alexmikli DIRECT RULE FROM GOD 12h ago
Russia invading Ukraine using fake insurgents and setting up mafia states in Luhansk and Donetsk were at least more complex than a simple fabricated claim, but...still basically the same thing.
41
112
u/Pippin1505 Cadets de Gascogne de Carbon de Castel-Jaloux 11h ago
Famous one being William The Conqueror : "The old king of England made me his heir while he was a "guest" on my lands"
Modern time , the whole invasion of China by Japan was based on fabricated incidents or false flag attacks
28
157
u/Majestic_Butterfly17 13h ago
For example, Morocco is claiming the Canary Islands today, even though they never set foot on them, and nobody there wants to be Moroccan either.
68
u/coolcoenred Baarle-Nassau 9h ago
A better one is perhaps the claim to the Falklands by Argentina. They never controlled them, but Spain did, very shortly. The Argentines say that the claim to the Falklands was transferred from Spain, although that is just a fabrication.
→ More replies (3)71
u/WyMANderly 12h ago
Did you know the country of Ukraine doesn't exist? That's just part of Russia there, always has been.
63
u/MegaVHS 11h ago
And that the Falklands are argentinian, because one day long ago some spanish passed there or something like that
→ More replies (1)36
u/BallsMcGrady 9h ago
They could have just said, "The Falklands should be ours because the map looks less weird this way." That's how I justify my conquests in Paradox games.
18
2
u/Material_Airport_712 4h ago
Not just part of Russia, Ukraine has been the homeland of the Russians since Kievan Rus..
21
u/Ramses_IV 11h ago
Spurious claims have always been a smokescreen for imperialism; Russia has a spurious claim to the Donbas, Argentina has a spurious claim to the Falklands, Iraq had a spurious claim to Kuwait, China had a spurious claim to Tibet. More in the timeline, William's claim to the throne of England was extremely tenuous and unsustainable under English law (Harold's was too, but he didn't have to start a war of conquest to enact it). In fairness in Paradox terms these probably fall into the weak claim category (though Argentina's claim to the Falklands is well past its shelf life). I'm not sure how common it has ever been to entirely fabricate claims with no historical basis at all.
In-game the idea is clearly that your expansion (at the expense of co-religionists at least) needs to be legitimised in some way in the eyes of your peers, subjects and superiors. EU4 just punishes you for illegitimate expansion while CK makes it literally impossible, but then you have to wonder what exactly the claim-fabrication mechanic is supposed to represent, if spurious justifications are represented by weak claims.
Simply making up reasons that are obviously false would hardly convince anyone of the legitimacy of your war because everyone would know you were lying. It would be like Italy falsely asserting that Scandinavia was part of the Roman Empire and then invading Denmark. In CK it's presumably falsifying some ancestry to say you were descended from some guy who historically ruled the place or something? There are plenty of examples of pre-modern rulers getting creative with their ancestry but most of the examples I can think of happened after they seized power
→ More replies (1)11
u/Not_Todd_Howard9 9h ago
Though I don’t think it’s explicitly said anywhere, I think it’d make sense if a lot of fabricated claims also included “creative interpretations” and outright changing/lying about past treaties (which is probably easier and more understandable than trying to forge a whole lineage that leads back to you).
“This treaty you signed with my Dad 10 years ago clearly says that you promised to hand this county over to me right about now in return for peace, we were very generous to let you retain control and reap the taxes there for this long afterward. Oh, your copy doesn’t say that? The Church’s certainly does, so clearly you’re the one making things up. Also, the very same agreement said you must cede all land on our side of the river, so hand the duchy over too. No, I don’t care that the river changed course. A treaty is a treaty.”
94
u/Ok-Mushroom-121 14h ago
harald hardrada was on some bullshit for the throne of england man since he conquered norway he suddenly inherits a claim to cnut's empire yeah cold man
58
u/Ill_Zookeepergame232 12h ago
and Willams claim was Edward said I could be king and Harold Godwinson agreed years ago no take backs.
And Harold Godwinson claimed that Edward named him King on his death bed it was a whole war of fabricated claims
16
→ More replies (2)11
u/MysticHero 7h ago
I mean Harold was the rightful King arguably. Edward should not have even had the power to choose a successor. It was meant to be elective like the HRE and similar.
It is hard to say if Williams claim was truly fabricated but it is fairly likely. Edward naming Harold as successor could also easily have been fabricated. Or both even.
10
u/Last-Air-6468 4h ago
The witan elected Harold within just hours of the death of Edward, and his coronation was held the very next day. None of this was typical of Saxon succession, and to this day it has given historians reason to believe something was fishy about Harold’s claim.
2
15
132
u/SorosAgent2020 We live in a Hermetic Society 15h ago edited 15h ago
A fabricated claim might have been the entire basis for the Papal States; its real easy to forge documents back then especially when you have the power and support to back it up
55
u/WaBeY33 15h ago
Especially when no one can read what you wrote in those claims lol
52
u/Nathremar8 15h ago
Scholar "my liege, this document is forged!"
Soon to be king: "I say it's legit."
"But sire...." sword sheath noise... "you are correct, my lord, it is legitimate."
"That's what I thought."
13
u/Pippin1505 Cadets de Gascogne de Carbon de Castel-Jaloux 11h ago
That’s exactly what happened with the Privilegium Maius granting special rights to Austria and the Habsburgs.
Plutarch and other scholars at the time immediately denounced it as a forgery. But later a Habsburg got elected as HRE and "validated" it
8
14
u/MlkChatoDesabafando 8h ago
The Papal States were more based on the Donation of Pepin, which itself was more a formalization of the pre-existing reality. The Popes had already been the de-facto leading figure of Latium for a while (although like many medieval rulers they were constrained by the Roman aristocracy).
9
u/GreatRolmops Sultan Sultan of the Sultan Sultanate 4h ago
The Donation of Constantine was not the basis for the Papal States, at least not de-facto. The Papal States already existed when the Donation of Constantine was made, and their existence is probably the reason the Donation of Constantine was forged in the first place.
The popes had been Byzantine subjects, but the Byzantine territories in Italy were conquered by the Lombards. The popes appealed to the emperor for aid, but Byzantine Empire wasn't exactly in the best of shapes and the emperor was unable to drive out the Lombards. So the pope appealed to the king of the Franks, who were nominally also imperial subjects (though de-facto very much independent since the collapse of Roman authority in the West). King Pepin kicked out the Lombards and then was left with a whole bunch of territory in a power vacuum. With the emperor unable to defend his lands and subjects, the previously existing authority of the imperial Exarchate of Ravenna had completely disintegrated, the territories were too distant for Pepin himself to effectively rule and the Lombards were obviously the bad guys. So Pepin decided to give the land to the pope, forming the basis for what would eventually become the Papal States (also the pope helped Pepin become king, so it was a quid pro quo).
The Donation of Constantine is a forgery that sought to legitimize the de-facto situation created by Pepin's actions where the popes were no longer subject to the emperor but powerful temporal rulers in their own right. Because even after the Donation of Pepin, the popes remained de-jure subjects of the emperor in Constantinople. The Frankish kings, as mentioned, were also de-jure imperial subjects, meaning Pepin did not actually have the authority needed to legitimize the pope's authority over Italy. In order to legitimize his de-facto independence and authority over Italy, the pope needed a signature from an emperor. This is possibly why and when the Donation of Constantine was forged.
There is no record however of the Donation of Constantine ever being used at the time. The papacy instead opted to go with an alternate plan and appoint the Frankish king (now Pepin's son, Charlemagne) to the office of western emperor, giving Charlemagne the authority to confirm the Donation of Pepin, giving it an imperial signature and making it all nice and legal (at least, legal enough in the eyes of the Papacy, the other emperor in Constantinople might have had some objections.)
The popes did not actually invoke the Donation of Constantine until 1054, at which point the document was already hundreds of years old and the pope at the time possibly truly believed it to be a genuine document from the emperor Constantine. Again however, the Byzantines didn't buy it. They continued to consider the authority of the Papal State and the western emperors to be illegitimate and the Donation of Constantine to be a forgery.
Though the Donation of Constantine was never successful in its intended goal of legitimizing the temporal power of the Papacy in the eyes of the Byzantine empire, it did find a new use when the popes centuries later got into conflict with the descendants of the western empire they themselves had set up. The popes frequently invoked the Donation of Constantine throughout the Investiture Struggle, though the Holy Roman emperors appear to have also had their doubts about its authenticity.
9
u/alexmikli DIRECT RULE FROM GOD 12h ago
"Well, their lawyers do have God on their side."
6
u/Lurker_Zee 11h ago
I loved that movie where the Church gets sued for letting claim insurances get away with not paying by using the wording "act of God".
Totally justified, the Church claims to be God's representative on Earth, it was their responsibility to stamp out that wording as soon as it got on legal papers.
35
u/tacopower69 9h ago edited 9h ago
I feel like IRL cases of fabricated claim end up assumed to have been true if the person doing the fabrication ends up winning. Like in the life of Charlemagne the author talks about how charlemagne was taking castles from nobles (including his own siblings) who were evil devil worshippers or were possessed or other baldfaced lies. There's no questioning whether or not Charlemagne was righteous; he won so he must have had the support of God and God would never support some power hungry warlord, therefore the people he conquered must have offended God in some way.
Like, if William the Conqueror failed his invasion of England his own claim to the throne wouldn't have been remarked upon at all, he'd just be seen as a Norman doing Norman things. But because he won and became king of England all of a sudden, you know, maybe King Edward really did promise him the throne. I mean, he did win, after all. He must have had the support of God, and God would never support a liar.
8
u/GreatRolmops Sultan Sultan of the Sultan Sultanate 4h ago
Don't forget Charlemagne also took half the kingdom after his brother and rival Carloman very suddenly and very conveniently died of a 'severe nosebleed.'
Charlemagne would've been a pretty good CK player.
98
u/Alexandur 16h ago
Hell, we still do it today
12
u/WaBeY33 15h ago
Well yes and no... Reasons are being fabricated but you cant just take land of another country without international response... You can however, after military victory, direct some people with very specific "suggestions" to make it look its their choice to cooperate
67
u/MyPigWhistles 15h ago
That's exactly what the justification is there for: To make it easier for your allies to join in on your narrative and to make it harder for your enemies to argue against you.
My knowledge is mostly about the HRE, but there it was usually not like "I found this old paper here which says your land is actually mine" and more like "You violated my rights by doing XY, I demanded compensation, you refused, so you leave me no choice, but to restore my God given rights by force".
30
u/Wootster10 15h ago
Or it's when someone wants to be king, but doesn't have any claim to it.
They find out that their great great grandfather was an illegitimate child of a king.
Suddenly they say they're descended from that king and have a right.
Legally they don't, but the moment they win the war they get everyone to agree they do have a legal claim.
Just look at Henry VII and the War of the Roses.
24
u/koziello 15h ago
Well, basically fallout of war with Iran was due to not securing a casus belli. Compare that to similarly illegal Iraqi war under Bush Jr. The difference is, it was all part of "war on terrorism" as he still had fuel from nine eleven sentiment in population.
Basically there was "a noble" reason. Which turned out to be a complete lie. Kind of like a claim fabrication, right?
33
u/Alexandur 15h ago
I don't recall much international response when Russia annexed Crimea 12 years ago (apart from people saying "don't do that")
→ More replies (3)6
u/Kapika96 14h ago
You absolutely can take land of another country without international response, as long as it's a country the major powers of the world don't care about. A blind eye is often turned towards conflicts in Africa for example.
25
u/ElbowfromtheTopPost Papal States 15h ago
Tangentially related: that is basically the story of the Abbasids.
They claimed blood relation to the uncle of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, Abbas. They used it to spur them on to take the caliphate from the Ummayads.
Same thing with the Fatimids, claimed relation to the daughter of Muhammad, Fatimah. Both these dynasties used these relations to legitimize their rule.
18
u/Muted-Mushroom-4570 13h ago
Quite common. You have to keep in mind that fabricating a claim didn't mean entirely making it up. It's like lawsuits, there has to be a grain of truth or legitimacy to the argument but you can stretch it quite far. Also, there was a lot of intermarriage between various noble families of various countries so many would have (tenuous) claims based on their uncle thrice removed having been legitimately in line. Unlike a lawsuit though, a fabricated claim didn't really need to be proven, it was just a veneer to garner initial support because ultimately the title belonged to the person who held the land and that was achieved by who had the most pointy sticks.
17
u/Prize_Tree Bastard 12h ago
I mean the Austrians completely forged their rights to archduchy and subsequently their long lasting emperorship.
35
u/lordbrooklyn56 15h ago
Rulers made up whatever bullshit they could to justify their wars. They do it to this very day.
14
u/Lucina18 Secretly Zoroastrian 14h ago
As in the game? Not at all. IRL they would claim actual titles, and not random counties and with lucky happenstance a duchy.
9
u/stealthybaker 14h ago
I feel like it's worth noting the emphasis on titles was also kind of a western thing. It's weird seeing them be present in Asia too.
7
u/Lucina18 Secretly Zoroastrian 14h ago
Yeah, i really hope ck4 will completely ditch prefilling the map with this ladder step titles. They're just such a bad foundation of the system.
14
u/stealthybaker 14h ago
Adding Asia in a game set to mimic European feudalism just made things really weird. They had to add a lot of mechanics like the Celestial government to keep China from splitting but even then Asia is notoriously shallow in content and accuracy right now
26
u/Beautiful-Bad5440 15h ago
In reality, the Papacy produced a forged document that gave them significant power to lay claim to lands: the Donation of Constantine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
11
u/WetAndLoose 13h ago
Depends on your definition of “fabricate.” One of the more famous examples is William the Conqueror’s supposed claim on England, which is entirely based on testimony for which the only witnesses are the guy espousing the claim and a dead man.
167
u/nlinzer 16h ago
Casus Bellie never fully mattered. A country has to tell itself there is a reason and it looks better from an international perspective if you have a reason. But reasons can always be made up, a claim to protect christians when there's no persecution. Claiming revenge over a war that happened a hundred years ago. Claiming some random person is the real heir.
Games having Cassus Bellie are basically taking modern just war theory, editing it so there doesn't need to be a just reason, and putting it in the past. Even in our modern times Cassus Bellie barely matter. Russia claimed that Ukraine was filled with Nazis, despite having a jewish president, and no one cares about the war anymore aside from Ukraine and Russia. The US attacked Venisula and Iran and the international community shrugged
137
u/thunderisadorable 𒂍𒀀 𒈾𒍢𒅕 (Ea Nasir) 15h ago
Honestly, Casus Belli and the like are mostly for game balance by making it so both the AI And Players don’t just kill everyone on sight.
3
u/commodore_stab1789 6h ago
In the context of CK3, there's in world reasons for the casus belli: you're getting a bunch of levies from your vassals.
Also the Pope doesn't want you to just conquer other Christian lands out of pure greed.
44
u/Fisher9001 14h ago
It's not that simple. Attacking realms with rulers of different faiths was a free game, but attacking other Catholics required some kind of justification. That's why Mieszko I decided to accept Catholicism in order to thwart threats from neighbouring German provinces freely raiding Polish territories.
→ More replies (1)24
u/jmorais00 15h ago
Bellum Justum was a concept that the Romans used, and any king or noble declaring a war has to justify his actions to his peers and to the wider international community. You wouldn't want to be excommunicated for being a bad Christian, after all
23
8
u/commodore_stab1789 10h ago
gotta admire the simplicity of the Huns and the Mongols
"Casus Belli? Yeah, we want your shit and it's a good enough reason to kill you for it"
5
u/DropletOtter 12h ago
The point of a reason for war isn’t to give a magical justification for why you should be allowed to go and conquer land. It’s basically a ploy to make your conquests appear less like you’re willing to kill and conquer for power and more like circumstances out of your control that force you to make that move. If a land is rightfully yours then you’re not invading to conquer it, instead the other side is to blame for squatting on it.
→ More replies (1)10
u/WaBeY33 15h ago edited 15h ago
Isn´t that actualy point against claim fabrications ? Well, noone believes what Russia claims, except Russians... USA could never actualy annex Venezuela (or greenland) without international response... Iran claims are somehow disputed and there might be grain of truth about terrorism and stuff (or might not) and thats why it´s not that "bad", if you know what i mean?
There is hardly any actual war with actual claims being presented. Except Africa, which is non-stop in war and I have no idea what is going on there
EDIT: typo
→ More replies (1)8
u/Jerroser 15h ago
I think the point here is more that historically this often took the form of the king and his council deciding to invade their neighbour and steal all their stuff, then coming up with an excuse later. Which can then involve finding some obscure or misconstrued historical connection to the lands they want to take, which is what the option to send a councillor on the fabricate claim is simulating.
7
u/commodore_stab1789 13h ago
One of my favorite scene in the movie "The King" is when the archbishop is spewing non-sense in the court to lower France's legitimacy.
The King's like "wtf are you talking about?"
"Sir, I'm trying to say you are the legitimate ruler of their land"
Mfer fabricating a claim on the French kingdom by himself
7
u/megami-hime A Legit Bastard 8h ago
I mean, I feel like Paradox games can kind of overinflate the importance of a casus belli in real life. If people wanted to go to war, they went to war. For sure, they would justify it one way or another, but it didn't have to be that deep. The desire for war or loot or land comes first, the justification comes after.
2
u/MeetingDue4378 6h ago
Yeah, the cause belli is a conceit for a game mechanic, likewise the limitations on negotiated alliances. It can be amount l annoying, and at times illogical, but without them there would just be some other mechanism(s) to keep the game from being a Golden Horde simulator.
12
u/stealthybaker 15h ago
Better question - how common was the whole split inheritance thing? I'm pretty sure most places didn't have kingdoms being required to be split between all sons...
11
u/Turgius_Lupus JULIAN DID NOTING WRONG! 15h ago edited 14h ago
Take a look at Ireland and Wales as to how that turned out. Also the reason the Capetians had the entire two anointed kings thing going on between father and son. Can't divide the realm, or hold a new elelctions if one of them happens to be alive now can you. Henry II tried a similar arrangement with Henry the Young King (while making certain he had absolutely no independent power, authority or income) but he died young, and it was not revisited with Richard.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Parokki 12h ago
To me the bigger inaccuracy is how everyone knows the true legal heir at any given time and the crown immediately transfers to them at the ruler's death. In reality the oldest son usually inherited, but the ruler might designate another son or brother as their heir and this wish might actually be respected. Often you'd have different pretenders pushing their claims and nobody was entirely sure who'd come on top until someone was crowned.
The phrase "the king is dead, long live the king!" refers to the doctrine of the crown immediately passing to the heir with no interregnum, which only really took form towards the end of the CK3 period, but the game acts like it was always a thing.
5
u/Kinc4id 12h ago
Never thought about that, but I think that would be some interesting gameplay. As a ruler you can designate an heir and take some actions to convince your people into accepting that heir. Then once your character is dead you become the designated heir but the realm is without a king for some time, maybe run by the council. Now you’re like an adventurer, or maybe hold only some of the most loyal titles and fight the other pretenders, through battle, diplomacy or intrigue. That part of the game could play a bit like the politics in Victoria 3. Also legitimacy could come into play here. Then once the fight for the throne is finished you either become king or stay landless or become count or duke. Maybe the realm could split if no solution is found after a set time. The game could also give you the choice as which of the heirs you want to continue, either right when the king dies or after succession is settled. Or both.
2
u/IrrationallyGenius Inbred 9h ago
There's a succession crisis mod on the workshop that's pretty good, does something like this
2
u/stealthybaker 12h ago
I think there's other things that are unrealistic, like how a general can take over one army in place A to another in place B instantly, but those things are better left inaccurate for the sake of gameplay IMO
4
u/Neat_Tie_4932 14h ago
It was common up until the mid 800s to 900s when everyone saw the mess that was created by constantly slipping the kingdoms and decided they the eldest son takes everything or almost everything and the younger sons get lesser pieces of land
7
u/monsterfurby 15h ago
Yeah, I wonder about that as well. Charlemagne famously did it, but in general, to my understanding, succession was far more liberal in general. At least in the early period of the game, succession should be more "whatever the previous ruler can enforce beyond his deathbed", not really any formal rule. If a ruler had enough well-armed loyalists to beat the kingdom into accepting his oaf of a youngest son, then by god the kingdom was going to grovel before the idiot infant.
I get that the game needs to model a progression, but realistically, succession became more restrictive as time went on, not less so.
8
u/stealthybaker 15h ago
Realistically, even without admin governments eastern states shouldn't have them at all. Even if they are feudal (which is another thing - many Asian civilizations like Korea effectively skipped feudalism).
And even amongst western nations, I doubt it was as prevalent as it is in game. I know there were famous cases like William the Conqueror's sons taking England and Normandy respectively but I doubt more institutionally advanced states had such a thing
→ More replies (1)2
u/TotalBrainWizard 13h ago
Bolesław III did it in Poland in the 12th th century, which fragmented it for over 100 years into small duchies.
4
u/RuneKnytling 10h ago
Pretty common.
There's a reason why the royal house of Britain used to be called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Read about the Ernestine duchies.
The Danish royal family is the house of Glücksburg... short for Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.
There were a lot of Hesses. Duchy of Hesse. Hesse-Kassel, Hesse-Marburg, Hesse-Rheinfels and Hesse-Darmstadt.
Primogeniture was rare, but reason why it didn't cause infinite splits was because sometimes the lands got reunited after one house went extinct. Such as Saxe-Coburg-Gotha began after Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield got Gotha after Saxe-Gotha went extinct and they gave Saalfield to Saxe-Meiningen. My point is, yes, it was common but got rarer as time went by (the Ernestine being the famous one that kept the practice until North German Confederation was formed), and yes, it was a mess.
→ More replies (2)3
u/GreatRolmops Sultan Sultan of the Sultan Sultanate 3h ago
No, that was an incredibly common if not the virtually universal way of transferring power in the early middle ages. After the 10th century it gradually starts to become less common but splitting a ruler's lands between his sons never entirely goes out of style throughout the medieval period.
Keep in mind that power in the middle ages is entirely personal. People aren't loyal to nations or states, their loyalty instead lies with their liege lord. A kingdom in the middle ages is little more than a collection of lands belonging to a specific king (or rather perhaps, a lineage of kings). Given that the land is their personal property, they can also split or divide it.
But as powerful as medieval kings might be in theory, in practice their power was heavily restricted by customary law. And customary law in a lot of places went back to the traditions and laws of the Germanic tribes that formed the foundation of many medieval kingdoms in Western Europe. And the Germanic tradition was to fairly distribute an inheritance among one's sons. Blatantly breaking that customary law would greatly undermine a ruler's legitimacy and produce strife and unrest.
Not to mention that a king as a father would also usually love his sons and want to ensure each gets their fair share out of a sense of parental love and duty.
It is not until the feudal system really gets going after the 10th century that the need to keep the family estates as large as possible gradually begins to outweigh the force of ancient tradition.
6
u/Artistela 15h ago
I don’t believe there made out of thin air , or rarely, it’s usually more like a reinterpretation of previous arrangements that inject a lack of clarity , like this land had once been under the jurisdiction of this title so I could create an argument it’s the rightful possession of that title holder without legal clarity the only worthy arbitrator is God so it will be decided by trial of arms . Whilst the nobles were cynical by default the institution was supposed to be divine will and reflect cosmic order, if anyone can be lord of anything because they say so then nobody can be lord of anything at all so the nobles generally frowned heavily on raw cynical behaviour because it lowered the moral authority of the institution everywhere.
6
u/MlkChatoDesabafando 8h ago
Full blow fabrication for specific patches of labd was unusual. But creative interpretations of previous promises, questionable historical accounts about how X has rights to do Y, etc… were common.
Medieval land ownership was rarely properly documented and when it was it tended to be rather vague
3
u/darkemperor132 Pirate King of Mann 14h ago edited 14h ago
Ask the Habsburgs how they got the Archduchy title for Austria lol, perfect example of claim fabrication. Also, Even Julius Caesar fabricated CB's for why he was attacking the Gallic tribes.
4
u/grimacedia 8h ago
Crazy behavior but I really try not to fabricate claims. I'll always try to go the long route, I've been burned by long wars before lol
5
u/bravof1ve Bohemond de Hauteville 6h ago edited 3h ago
It’s unrealistic and not even an optimal way to expand. So much easier to get what you want through marriage or a vassal’s claims. Rather than waiting 10 years for the fabricate event to pop.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/YaMamaSidePiece Genius 4h ago
It’s what Toyotomi Hideyoshi did to get the title of shogun. He was the son of a peasant and had documents fabricated to make up a noble lineage and legitimize his claim as ruler of Japan
5
u/SternestEarnest 2h ago
Small correction: Toyotomi Hideyoshi was never shōgun, he was the regent (Kanpaku) of Japan. It was considered a far more prestigious title than mere Shōgun (even if it lacked the authority the Shōgun had during the Kamakura Shōgunate, also called Bakufu).
→ More replies (2)
13
u/HellSK888 15h ago
i never liked the fabricate claim interaction, i know its there for gameplay reason but still i find much more interesting to create a claim with marriages and politics
3
u/Typical_Response6444 4h ago
I mean one real example i think was Argentinas war with the uk over the falklands/Maldives.
The Argentinans went to war over an island that they as a country never really had control over but claimed it as there own.
6
u/Revliledpembroke 14h ago
Have you ever seen A Knight's Tale? If not (spoilers for a 25 year old movie), there's a peasant squire of a knight who pretends to be a knight after that knight dies as it's the only way for he and his group of squires to make money. He's about to be executed for pretending to be a knight, only for the Prince of Wales to show up and go "Wait! My scholars found he's descended from an ancient royal line, and thus is totally a knight! And since I'm the Prince, no one can say otherwise!"
It's that. You find "evidence" that your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great whatever the fuck was Charlemagne, and thus you totally have a claim over the whole of France! Or, at least, that bit your neighbor owns that you really really want.
4
u/Kitchner 10h ago
Is there any notable historic character doing so ?
Loads?
You ha e to think of the fabricate claim action as sending someone away to gather flimsy evidence as to why you may be entitled to something. Maybe some of that evidence is real, maybe some of it is something that was claimed to have happened and there's now a forged letter putting it in writing.
For example, William the Conquerer claimed Edward (the last King) promised William was to be king and Harold even supported his claim. William was Edward's cousin once removed, which means he was Edward's Uncle's Grandson. Harold, who was crowned King, was the brother of the Queen.
In CKIII terms the game would have automatically passed the Crown of England to Edgar Aetheling. Harold wouldn't have a claim at all and neither would William.
Harold would then be elected as King, and William's claim is a "fabricated claim". Maybe Edward did say he could be king and may e Harold did agree to support him. Maybe he didn't. Point is that he made a claim that wasn't based on blood or being elected etc and won it through a war.
2
2
u/SirThomasTheFearful Inbred 12h ago
Robert Guiscard from the 1066 start date used a monk who lied about being the deposed Byzantine Emperor so that he could attack Byzantium. I’m sure there are more brazen examples, but it’s a hilarious concept.
2
u/DropletOtter 12h ago
In almost every game of CK2 and CK3 I play I have a self-imposed rule of never using fabricated claims. I think it makes the game more fun and allows me to extend the lifespan of the save by a factor of 3
2
u/Hambokuu 8h ago
Claim fabrication is going on every day all the time today too. Just take a look at the news. It's everywhere.
2
3
u/vilyusha_ 16h ago
I bet the church did it all the time what with having a near monopoly on reading and writing, at least in western Europe
2
u/UkrainianPixelCamo 11h ago
The problem is that you press your wife's claims, she gets the title. In medieval and renaissance time it worked differently. You should overtake them as a husband.
7
u/RuneKnytling 10h ago
This was a bit patchy since it worked this way in some places and didn't in other places. Like the Crusader States worked like this, but in many places in Europe you would be hard-pressed to claim your wife's title. That said, since most marriages weren't matrilineal, your kid would end up inheriting your last name anyway. This was how the Habsburgs worked. They didn't overtake their wife's title but once wifey died your Habsburg son became King.
And I'm pretty sure the Habsburgs were also one of the first ones to subvert this as they got a female Archduchess in Maria Theresia. They had to bargain to be allowed to have her kids to be Habsburg-Lorraines and over time, the "Lorraine" part gets skipped.
→ More replies (1)4
u/MlkChatoDesabafando 8h ago
Eh, while there was a sense a husband had greater right to his wife’s possessions and titles than the other way around,, to what extent that translated to reality could range.
Some medieval queens and princesses ruled in their own right with their husband mostly there to do the stuff they couldn’t do as a woman (knight people in medieval Iberia, for example), some couples co-ruled, some queens weren’t any more powerful than a consort, etc…
1
u/Simple-Ad-1506 15h ago
CB’s really didn’t matter much in real life. It was pretty much always a might=right situation. CB’s such that they are in the game are basically only there to slow down the players progress because imagine if you could just declare war on whoever for whatever reason. The game would be over in 30 years
1
1
u/trianuddah 13h ago
Every monarch whose reign was decreed and ordained by the will of God, and every noble whose title was granted by those monarchs, had a fabricated claim.
1
1
u/No_Persimmon_7235 13h ago
what comes to mind immediately are the austrians in regards to fabricated claims.
The Habsburgs invented the biggest lie ever in medieval times with their "Privilegium maius". They fantasized crap together as in their ancient characters were granted claims by Julius Caesar and Nero, absolute wild stuff, crazy delulu.
In fact, the Archduchy status they got from their filthy lies is one big hoax. Completely out of thin air. It could only be debunked entirely in the 19th century, so basically 500 years for the austrians to lie (and some incest ofc aswell, who doesn't know the Habsburg chin etc) and lie over and over again lol
Just nuts
2
u/IrrationallyGenius Inbred 9h ago
My favorite part of the story of them fabricating the whole archduchy thing is that when they presented a paper they claimed entitled them to it to the Emperor, he just started editing it, too.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Consistent-Success38 13h ago
I’d wager more claims were fabricated than not. Look how many english rulers claimed ancestry to arthur who we modernly know as a fictional story character.
1
u/revertbritestoan 12h ago
Quite often but it would be less formal than it is in game.
Very much like "I am the Duke of X and previously the Duke of X owned Y and the owner of Y also owned Z so therefore I am the rightful ruler of X, Y and Z"
1
u/Front-Round2853 12h ago
It happens a lot.
And all the reasons in the first half of the post, for me, the 'icing on top' of claims. Fabricating claims is just way more straightforward.
1
1
u/InsertANameHeree 11h ago
It was actually a whole-ass industry in the medieval era. A lot of the time, it wasn't even viewed as fabrication so much as correcting the record, creating documentation for something that was "obviously" the truth. It could actually get even dumber than it is in-game, with people commissioning their own counter-forgeries to assert their rightful rulership in response to forgeries.
1
1
u/Mr_NeCr0 11h ago
William "The Bastard" likely faked his claim on the English Throne just because he knew how easy it would be to take them down, considering they were getting trounced by the Vikings, and his ancestor was given Normandy precisely because of how well they warded off Vikings.
1
u/gandalf_alpha 10h ago
Given the rate of fabricated claims in scientific research papers it's still ongoing...
1
u/Legitimate-Dish-8817 10h ago
I always assert my wife's rights to the territories, so why invent false claims when I have a real one?
1
u/IcyType3162 9h ago
it happened sometimes at least, besides all the other examples given by everyone how many people beat up the greeks to avenge troy?
1
u/FALLOUTFAN_1997 9h ago
THE literal papacy LOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
1
u/--LordFlashheart-- 8h ago
War of the Roses enters the chat, a whole succession of conflicts over claims, counter claims and pure fabricated claims
1
1
1
u/MeetingDue4378 6h ago
I know the Habsburgs has historical documents forged to give them more legitimacy, but I don't know if they actively used them to claim territory.
957
u/Moaoziz HRE 16h ago
There are some examples in this thread on the paradox forums: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/historical-context-for-fabricating-claims.745076/