It's shocking to me how long partition-type succession existed in Europe for when it is so bad for the stability of the realm. However, we have hindsight, and access to incomparable amounts of information that medieval rulers obviously did not.

Is our modern day concept/perception of the "realm" part of the problem?

Why was primogeniture and other single-heir types of succession so slow to catch on?

One of the religions you can convert to is Adamitism, a nudist heresy of Christianity that believes going naked returns one to Adam's original state of innocence.

Did this really exist? How prominent was it?

Regarding the "Eurocentric" and "East Asia DLC" comment (and since future DLC are virtually guaranteed) -- what specific things are missing from CK3 as it currently exists (in terms of systems, not just map regions) that would reflect a more holistic view of this period of history?

The word 'peasant'. There seems to be a disconnect between the popular understanding of the term and who the label really should apply to - I habitually copy u/Rittermeister asking "What do you mean by 'peasant'?" whenever the topic of the levy comes up.

So what really is a peasant?

I understand that Crusader Kings III, like the previous installment, ends in 1453. Would you consider this a good end date for the Middle Ages, or is it too early, or too late?

My first question relates to Feudalism. CK3's Feudal system is highly structured, formalized, and regimented, with Barons being subordinate to Counts who are subordinate to Dukes who are subordinate to Kings who are subordinate to Emperors. This is the same the world over, with the difference being the exact titles involved. I know from other answers on this subreddit that this idealized, regimented concept of Feudalism is based off of Medieval France. How much does CK3's Feudal system resemble reality, whether in medieval France or elsewhere in Europe like Germany, Poland, or England?

My second question relates to war. At least when playing in Catholic Europe, declaring war is a fairly restricted affair. You must have a valid claim on a holding to declare war for it - you can't simply decide one day to invade your neighbor without a valid reason. How "real" is this? Were there actually restrictions, either legal or just informal/cultural, on what wars were considered "just"? Could rulers be punished for declaring "unjust" wars? And actually building off this, were wars even formally "declared"?

My third question relates to culture. At least at the moment, basically all Catholic European characters' court culture is the same. The main forms of leisure activity are feasts and hunts, whether you're playing anywhere between Ireland and Poland. What is this generically "medieval" culture of hunting and feasts based off of? Is it, like Feudalism, based off of the ideal of French courtly culture? (Obviously we'll be paying $20 for DLC to get unique court cultures in the future, but was curious about this generic one)

My fourth question relates to the concept of "levies". In CK3, levied common people provide the base of your military, with masses of levied people being bolstered by professional man-at-arms units and individual nobles. I know that for example during the Hundred Years War, the English army was a largely professional force while the French army included large levied masses, but these levies generally did not fight, and battles were largely fought by nobles, their men at arms, and mercenary companies. Was the role of levied commoners really as crucial to military forces of the time as CK3 portrays?

My final question relates to extramarital sex. CK3 at the moment is notorious for rampant extramarital sex and affairs by married characters. But at the same time, having an affair publicly revealed is enough legal justification for women who have them to be imprisoned. Was infidelity something that was punished by secular rulers? I know this is something that it's hard to find sources for, but was infidelity something extremely common among men and women of the nobility, as CK3 would portray?

CK3 restricts marriage between religious groups (with a hostile stance towards each other, so for example Christianity and Islam), but allows any marriage between cultures.

In western Europe, in or around 1066; Was it common for someone who was a male ruler or heir high in the line of succession to marry outside of the culture? How were brides commonly selected? What was that process like?

One of the more annoying things in CK3 is that your vassals contribute almost nothing to levies, regardless of the situation. They will contribute a small percentage of the overall troops you can field (with 90+% coming from how own demesne), even in the face of an outside threat trying to take one of their own counties! Obviously as their lord part of the deal is protection, but it seems a little unrealistic for vassals to sit completely on their hands in situations like that. How much would a vassal lord be expected to contribute to the national defense in real history?

One topic some CK fans like to constantly complain about is the existence ingame of what the game calls "matrilineal marriage", where the children of the union are designated as belonging to the Dynasty of the wife, rather than the Dynasty of the husband. These folks claim that it is "ahistorical" to include this as an option.

Gameplay reasons for including such a mechanic aside (it's mandatory if playing a female ruler is to not be a game over by the Dynasty-focused rules of the game), what IS the historical standing of such a concept? Are there examples we know about of marriages that would be called "matrilineal" by that definition? Was the concept of "dynasty" as conceptualized by CK even a thing?

In CK3, rulers are able to build additional farms and pastures which grant taxes linearly per level, but cost significantly more for each upgrade. From a player's perspective this makes higher level (more intensive and large) farming operations have a negative ROI. Regarding this strange game design choice I have a few questions.

Was the output of a plot of land relatively static during this period (so more output requires farming less fertile land)? How much did agricultural output actually improve during the time period and locations that CK3 is set in?

I haven't played as a female ruler in CK3 yet but in CK2 your vassals would often have a -10 (or more) modifier if you were ruling a nation as a female.

How realistic is that? How often, in the period between 867 - 1453 were women successful and respected rulers?

In CK3, as a Christian ruler (anywhere between count-emperor) you can go on a pilgrimage once every 15 years or so. I've actually even read about commoners doing this in books like Pillars of the Earth.

How realistic is this? Would, say, the count of Dublin really travel to Jerusalem? It seems to me that's how you get the "Prince John / Sherriff" from Robin Hood situation.

First time posting in this sub so if my question breaks any rules or is formatted incorrectly, feel free to let me know. Here it goes:

CK3 has introduced a lot of faiths that didn't exist in the previous game and this has led to a great deal of religious diversity, especially in places like West Africa. Three of these new faiths present in CK3 (Bori, Orisa and Roog Sene) have equal gender laws. The game does mention some historical female rulers in the area (like Daurama Daura of Kano) and through EUIV I also know of Amina of Zazzau but I'd like to learn more about the history of female rulers in that general area. I'd also like to know how these female rulers impacted their society, especially when it comes to gender roles.

I have three questions regarding the eastern edges of the map. These are going to be in the format of "how accurate is x thing" but I definitely mean it as a criticism of the game so much as a way to try to learn more of the situation there.

1. In the 867 startdate we have the countries of Guiyi and Ganzhou, under the Zhang and Yuan dynasties respectively, with both being of Han culture and with Zhengyi taoism as their religion. I'm assuming these are meant to be the last remnants of the Tang dynasty in the region. I remember from college classes that a lot of Tang dynasty ways of governing, like for example land registers, weren't used anymore. Still, how close to the reality of 867 is the way these countries are represented, namely as being a feudal realm ruled by a powerful family? And how did they get to this situation?
2. I recall reading a post on this sub not too long ago that said that while buddhism was sponsored in Tibet during the Tibetan empire, it faded away after the fall of that empire only to be reintroduced later. In both startdates we have significant numbers of buddhists in the region, although always with competition from Bön, Tengri and various smaller religions. How accurate are these representations of the Tibetan religious landscape, are there any interesting nuances that were present that the game doesn't represent?
3. How close does the tribal government come to representing the politics of the various groups on the steppe?

​

I realise a lot can probably be said about each of these individually, so feel free to focus on one you find interesting instead of all if that's easier/more fun ^^

I noticed some people answering questions about Japan. If they extend the map east in a future update, what should the government type look like for Japan? It seems safe to assume that tribal, feudal, republic, or clan government wouldn't work. And was inheritance split among heirs?

Were China and Korea similar to Japan in terms of government structure and inheritance or were they quite different?

Were succession laws really a written rule in different kingdoms? What was really stopping a ruler from giving all their land to a single heir versus splitting it up? I feel that deciding your succession laws and carefully crafting your heirs is a big part of the game, but how realistic is that?

I have heard that when a warleader was judged not to have a just cause for a war, his levies would sit down and refuse to fight.

How often would battles be avoided and wars cease because of a widespread refusal to fight among the soldiers?

Separate question or two:

1. On the matter of the game's mechanics themselves, how are steppe nomadic entities portrayed, and to what extent is this portrayal (if badly inaccurate) a best attempt based on the limitations of the game's systems; and on a more subjective note

2. In a game like CK3 or EU4 centred on modelling the politics of sedentary states, can nomadic and other non-state entities ever really be portrayed in a way that does them justice?

In CK2 it was quite challenging to successfully play as a Christian Heresy. In CK3, and I think the mechanic just needs tuning, it is extremely easy to play as a Christian Heresy. From my limited understanding of history the Catholic church had immense sway in the medieval period.

Sure, it was probably more difficult to control the peasantry but surely the nobles were very unlikely to embrace a heresy?

In CK3 vassalage is a binary affair, you either have a liege or you don’t and if you do you you can only have one liege. This can lead to strange situations where titles can be inherited by a vassal of a different realm which creates ugly and illogical exclaves in the process.

For example in CK a vassal of France could inherit the County of Chalkidiki in Thessaly and that territory would instantly go from being controlled fully by the Byzantine empire to an exclave owned by the French.

What happened historically when such a situation occurred? I’d imagine the vassal would retain their standings and obligations within their original title while simultaneously gaining new ones.

I guess my main question is what happened when inheritances would lead to an individual having multiple Lieges in entirely separate realms?

A second related question I have is how common place were situations like the one Duke William the Bastard found himself in when he conquered England and became King? Further how were these half vassal half independent lieges handled in the medieval period?

Thanks in advance, y’all are wonderful 😄

In CK3, you can easily wed your children to lowborn nobodies, losing nothing but some prestige points. What would have happened historically if, say, the daughter of the Basileus was wed to a random burgher or peasant?

Second question: how common was matrilineal marriage and adoption of children into the mother's dynasty?

In Crusader King’s 3 vassals under the same kingdom often go to war with each over land claims. I understand that private “feuds” were common in certain periods where nobles would fight each other to receive justice from a supposed slight or crime. what I’m interested in is how frequently did vassals of the kingdoms of France and England wage private wars of conquest against each other without involvement of the king during the medieval period? How similar does the game models these private wars to the real thing?

So, the blurb for ParallelPain got me thinking about definitions and periodisation: to what extent does 'medieval' apply as a more broadly (Afro-)Eurasian phenomenon?

'Early Modern', as I understand, does get understood as basically global given the role of maritime connections, but what about 'medieval'? In this case, 'medieval Japan' is being used to include a period that at least superficially seems to slot very much in the Early Modern period, but of course, if there were enough continuities from before to justify that, why shouldn't that be?

CK3 rulers sometimes face peasant revolts with significant military power. These revolts might be aided by sympathetic (or ambitious) vassals, but the game also generates a "Leader" of the revolt, who springs into being when the revolt starts and doesn't have much identity outside of it. If the leader wins the revolt they may become an independent ruler; if he loses he generally dies in the dungeon.

What do we know about the actual leadership figures in important peasant revolts?

As a player, once you've cemented your dynasty as somewhat secure in the medium-long term, alliances aren't always that important. They're nice to have, but by no means essential, and you can just pass off a third-born son, or a daughter, to another nearby king.

• 1 - Would a marriage between the fourth son in line (as an example) and the third-born daughter be viewed as 'strongly' as a marriage between a firstborn son and a firstborn daughter? Or would it be more linked to prestige, in that whilst a neighbouring baron might accept marrying his daughter to your thirdborn son, an earl would be insulted by such an offer, and nobody would contemplate such with a King?

In the meantime, you might marry your heir to the [Strong], [Beautiful], or [Smart] daughter of an unimportant vassal of few holdings, in the hope of inheriting beneficial traits on your grandchild, or bloodline in general.

Whilst not as egregrious as CK2's "Search for a lowborn Genius and pay them stupid amounts of money to come and convert", it's still something I find myself doing, even ending up marrying the other end of Europe. So, :

• 2 - Was marrying for traits weighed heavily, or was it cast by the wayside instead of powerful alliances, stability, and fertility? Did noble houses practice a form of eugenics to have their children be stronger, or more beautiful, or even just to have certain features, such as eye or hair colour?

Thanks for doing this! I have three questions:

EDIT: I’m not expecting an answer to all three btw, just anything you feel you could shed light on would be great.

1.) A key mechanic in the game is fabricating a claim on your neighbor’s territory. In the game, a member of your realm’s clergy creates some distant ancestral relation which makes you the de jure owner of a county. Because of this, you’re sanctioned by God to pursue that claim through war and add that county to your domain.

Was this common in the Middle Ages? Or is this mechanic ubiquitous in the game to keep the player from warmongering?

2.) When playing the game I’m often cynically taking advantage of existing religious systems to further my own cause. But I want to know if the pope and kings were as cynical as I am playing the game, or if they genuinely had faith in these systems and believed what they claimed to. In other words, if I met a king in the Middle Ages, how likely is it that he actually believed in God, that he spoke through the Pope, etc?

3.) This probably ties into question 2, but it’s very broad: Why did Christianity and Islam take the Middle Ages by storm? Playing the game makes me think that being allowed to wage just wars sanctioned by your religious head (and being protected from unjust conquest) led to a more stable realm than the more “might makes right” ways of antiquity. Is this why rulers were so quick to embrace one of these religions, depending on geography? Or did they have populist roots, and rulers converted to appease their people?

The Basque have always been represented in CK as having succession laws where men and women were equal, unlike the vast majority (if not all) of Western Europe.

1. How real is this representation of Navarre and the Basque culture in CK?
2. Assuming there’s truth to it, was women’s reinforced role in succession mirrored elsewhere in Basque society? I guess what I’m asking is: did Basque women enjoy more freedom than eg their Portuguese or German contemporaries?
3. Finally, if this is a legitimate representation of Basque culture, why did it happen there and not elsewhere in Europe? Why did Basque culture evolve this way?

In the game it is possible to see every characters sexual orientation. This is clearly a gameplay feature for seduction focuses but was there any sort of clear understanding of distinctions of sexuality, and would it be widely known if a ruler was what we consider today to be gay or bisexual?

CK3 suggests quite a few characters to play with, to provide some context/history and goal for the player. One of those characters is Daurama of Hausaland, who is introduced as the final female ruler in a line of matriarchal queens.

What is actually known about these queens, and how their political dynasty worked?

The Byzantine government system at the moment is feudal which I understand to be completely wrong. What did the Byzantine government look like around the year 1066 and how could it be better modeled in game? (Sorry if this second question is too game design centric)

How common was cuckoldry?

(In other words, does CKIII need a patch?)

In CK3, in both the 867 and 1066 start dates, there exists a faith called Kushitism in East Africa whose details seem to suggest that it is, if not a kind of continuation of the ancient Egyptian religion, at least somewhat influenced by it. This was a bit notable for me, as as I understood it, the ancient Egytian religion was no longer practiced during the game’s timeframe. To provide more details on it:

• The faith and religion’s description reads, “Veneration of the ancient gods remains strong here, as does the veneration of the boundary between life and death.”
• The religion’s high god is Wepwawet, which Wikipedia notes as an ancient Egyptian deity.
• The faith’s icon appears to be a wolf or jackal, an animal which, if I’m not mistaken, has some association with the ancient Egyptian religion - Wikipedia also notes that Wepwawet had been depicted as having the head of a wolf or jackal.
• The game categorises this faith as a denomination of the Kordofan religion, which is in turn considered a pagan religion.
• Kushite counties and rulers can be found in the de jure kingdoms of Darfur, Nubia, Blemmyia, and Abyssinia.

So did this faith exist? If it did, to what extent was it similar to the ancient Egyptian religion? Additionally, what do we know about its origins, end, beliefs, and practices?

I don’t have a question, but thanks for doing this!

Hi there! Hope this isn't too late.

By the time of the Carolingians, and going through the high middle ages, to what extent did the peoples of Western Europe still view themselves in terms of Germanic tribal identities?

In other words, by Charlemagne's time, were Burgundians and Lombards and Swabians simply people living in Burgundy and Lombardy and Swabia, or did they understand themselves to be the direct inheritors of a barbarian legacy that 300 years earlier had settled in those parts?

Would everyday people in West Francia, especially the Langue d'Oc region, have considered themselves to be Frankish at all?

When France adopted agnatic primogeniture? In CK2 it was present in 1066, but in CK3 it isn't.

Thanks for hosting this panel!

Question for all of you: which book would you recommended to read that covers your field, that is accessible to amateurs?

Slightly before the CK3 timeframe, but might as well ask anyway.

There are plenty of examples of Islamic influence on the cultures and languages of Iberia, but I haven't seen many examples of Germanic/Visigothic influence beyond names (Fernando/ez, Gonzalo/ez, Rodrigo/uez, etc.). Are there any other examples of Visigothic influence, or were there simply not many/they got supplanted?

As it's mentioned in the title... that Zoroastrianism became a "meme incest religion" due to CK2 really bugs me (even though I'm not Zoroastrian). From what I've read it seems like it was restricted to some of the royal family and by the time of the start date it wasn't accepted by regular Zoroastrians, but it's pretty hard to get info on. Am I wrong and the portrayal of sibling marriage by Zoroastrians is actually reasonable?

How commonplace was it for feudal rulers to hold multiple smaller holdings, such as baronies? As well, how were they able to manage owning multiple lands; did they have people representing them rule over lands they held in title, but couldn't personally see over due to distance from their primary title?

In CK3, when your character becomes disfigured, they get a beautiful steel mask. Do these have any real life analogues?

How much continuity was there between Roman and post-Roman models of governance, economics, and religion.

It seems like to me (as I expressed in other comments), there was a great deal of continuity between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (if in, fact, those terms are not essentially synonymous).

Certainly much of the political elites were replaced with "barbarians", but many of those "barbarians" were already pretty well and thoroughly Romanized and had had a place in the Empire.

What are your thoughts on how Islam is represented in the game. Specifically how they made Andalusian Islam a separate faith and in the 867 start date they have Ashari and Maturidi when both of them had no influence at that period?

If Japan and China were added to CK3 via a DLC, what do you think is the best approach to it given that China and Japan (before the Genpei War) political systems were vastly different than Europe?

How often would someone denounce a person from their dynasty and what sort of impact would happen in the realm?

I am wanting to know more about India, in particular the government and succession system. Were they feudal as shown in game? What about partition particularly confederate partition, was that common succession for the Indian Kingdoms/Empires or did they follow a different sort of succession system?

What was the richest and most developed region of the world in 867?

In CK3, Manichaeism is depicted as only having significant populations and rulers that practice it on the eastern part of the map (e.g. Qocho and Transoxiana). As I understand it, followers of Manichaeism were persecuted in both Europe and Asia, and it ultimately faded away in the west (and eventually, the east; the game itself seems to reflect this as it shrinks in between 867 and 1066). I am curious about a few things regarding this:

1. Why did Manichaeism survive longer in the east than in the west? What led to it eventually disappearing in the east as well?
2. What were the reasons for it being persecuted by Christian, muslim, and eastern rulers?
3. When could Manichaeism be said to have gone extinct in Europe and the Middle East? What about in Central and East Asia?

If there was a East Asia DLC(I so hope there is!) They would of course have to include both the Tang and Song dynasties. How would the governments of the Tang and Song differ from each other in terms of organization? I know the Tang government was more militaristic with the Jiedushi and stuff but how did things change and stay the same between the dynasties.

In CK3 the Irish are represented as practicing a unique christian faith which has a few slight differences with Catholicism, but most notably, it permits polygamy. Is there any historical basis for the idea that Christian Irish rulers had multiple wives?

I have questions about Muslim world

1. How did territorial administration look like? Was it more like imperial government with provinces and governors appointed by the ruler or more like feudal with various clans owning some parts of the realm?
2. How did succession work? Were there any rules or was it always contested between brothers?
3. How was army organized? Was it mostly standing or based on levies called up during war?

In CK3 the earlier start date is based around viking conquest and pillaging. Often in the game there are conquests taking over chunks of the Iberian peninsula, even sometimes as far as modern day Italy. Clearly this kind of thing happened to the British isles, but CK3 makes these conquests out to be dramatically transformative to the entirety of not just some parts of Northern Europe, but Europe as a whole. How accurate is this portrayal?

Also if I can continue the thought further, what large impacts did Scandinavian viking conquests have on society or other medieval institutions?

One of the current oddities of CK3 is that the AI is constantly seducing eachother, having extramarital affairs, and creating secret bastard children, to the point where many male rulers' are not actually the father of any of their kids. This is obviously a design oversight in a video game, a side effect of making sex as simple as pressing the "seduce" button and then (unlike CK2) giving it to everybody, but how much of this was a problem in real life? Was it common for a king or queen to have a few secret hookups among their fellow nobles? Were women not afraid of a suspicious pregnancy or a baby that doesn't resemble their husband or them? Were family lineages really that fraudulent? Could you regularly make an episode of Maury between dukes and duchesses (kidding)?

How well are heresies and holy orders implemented in ck games and what do you wish they could've done? Both topic about heresies and holy orders are so juicy i dont know where to start from hahaha

Talk to me about women representation in the middle ages! I was surprised by how (more) normal society was towards female composers (like Hildegard von Bingen) and writers than i expected.

For simplicity and gameplay, Crusader Kings III uses relatively concrete borders and nations. I'm wondering if there was any sort of allegiance/nationalism among common people, especially those who were levies. Were people willing to die so readily for a king who conquered them within their lifetime? How were leaders able to convince enough people to fight? Did these levies have any military training or are they simply peasant mobs?

Thanks

The entire dynamic between Christian and Islamic Iberian rulers in ck seems very simplified as the more i look into it the more i see how fascinatingly intermingled fluid two parts of iberia were in terms of religion/culture. How did this Al-Andalusi melting pot look like in its zenith? What was it like to be a Christian vassal in Muslim owned Iberia and vice versa?

How "Big" was the pre 1066AD world in terms of communications? Were the contacts between states/people were enclosed locally within regions or say rulers from different parts of Europe (or even Eurasia) could communicate?

Here are the few examples I've heard

- Harun al-Rashid had a lovely letter exchange with Charles the Great, also bought him an elephant.

- Spanish jews had close contacts with Khazarian jews, I think it could be applied to all jewish diasporas across Europe

- One of the first "viking" raids of Iberia was done by "Roses", probably the scandinavians from modern Russia

- Merovingian Kings had embassies in the Byzantine Empire

Why do you think East Asia wasn't included in CK3? Did China in this period social hierarchy and government was very different to, let's say Byzantium or some major Indian state, that it couldn't be integrated into the game mechanics?

I've had this question for a while so I'll ask it here, in a lot of my games of CK2/2 and EU4 wars will happen where both of the nations are fully occupied by the other. I know it's a long stretch of history, well beyond what a normal post should cover, but would that happen?

Were there wars were each nation occupied large parts of territory in the other? Or is this just a game mechanic and not how actual wars would have gone?

In game the heptarchy is represented by having them be called 'petty kings' and being Duke tier in the feudal system. There is also a de jure kingdom of England in 867, although it excludes Cornwall. Do you think mercian hegemony, and then the later concept of bretwalda makes the concept of a united Anglo saxon realm (England) acceptable for 867, or that the heptarchy should each be king tier and with their own de jure realm?

Also if I may ask a second one, what do you think of the concept of 'de jure' land, which can dynamically change but rarely does, and should it exist, especially in the case of pagan Eastern Europe.

One of the options for succession in the game is tanistry. If you play through the tutorial, it's also the first form of succession that you're introduced to aside from confederate partition of titles.

I have two questions about this:

1. In the game, tanistry gives you a list of potential candidates to pick from to vote for. The list seems to include basically anyone that's related to you in some fashion (and if you're in Ireland, that's basically the children of every Duke/Petty King since most of the starting ones are related to you). Was that how things were historically in Ireland (and I think Scotland?)? It seems rather wild to have so many potential heirs available. Not that I'm thinking there was some sort of ballot distributed, but just that you could conceivably pick seemingly anyone to become ruler of the realm.

2. You are also given the option to pick from women to nominate as the heir. Was that something that happened or is that just a game mechanic that lets you choose to be a High Queen instead of a King? I know from another answer here that women holding titles wasn't unheard of, but it seems odd to me that the game would let you pick a female heir even if you're playing with a religion that prevents granting titles to women and generally only disfavor female inheritance.

How common were affairs and such in Medieval courts? It's my understanding that marriage were entirely political, securing alliances and heirs. But, was love a foreign concept in most courts? I know, or I think I've heard, about like... Chivalric courtly romance and such, but how much of that is fairy tale and how much is based on reality?

Did nobles often have partners on the side who they enjoyed the company of due to lust or love, or was that rare just due to the risk of being caught and ostracized?

The game is almost entirely organized around "de jure" counties and duchies, but where did these come from? How and when were they defined? I assume the reality was far more fluid, but the Duchy of York, for example, existed for a long time. Where did it come from?

A lot people say that nationalism began in the late 18th century with the French Revolution. Did any societies in the medieval period or earlier perceive the "nation state" similar to how modern people do, where the state was not something that was owned by the monarch, but rather its own separate entity?

In CK3 there are two distinct government types for Christian and Muslim rulers, feudal and clan governments. The feudal government type has a more formalized contract between a ruler and a vassal, specifying how many levies and taxes they must supply their liege.

On the other hand the clan government type doesn't have any contract and the amount of levies and taxes a vassal gives their liege scales based on their opinion of their liege.

How significant were differences in government in Muslim and Christian realms? Were these differences rooted in religion or were they more regional/cultural?

This might sound a bit stupid of me, but here goes:

While I kind of understand why alliances being sealed by marriages (although more elaboration might be better), non-marriage based alliance in both CK2 and 3 seem to be primarily based on close relatives negotiating things out. CK3 does have exception where you can do some non-marriage alliance outside of this familial if you take certain perk in Diplomatic lifestyle tree, but all of that in the games highlight that: non-marriage alliance is not a common thing, especially to those outside familial relations.

I wonder: why is that? I mean, modern diplomacy might have clouded my understanding (as limited as it is), but why doesn't it seem to be a bit more common thing back then?

Not sure if this should have been attached to my other question on Song and Tang government, but on a related note how were the Japanese organized during 867 and 1066? I'm under the impression this was pre-Samurai/Daimyo dominance in both dates, how would the government and land be organized and managed.

The courtiers and guests in your court, even your own children, will often just pack up and leave for another court half way around the world with little notice. You're also able to do pilgrimages of similar distances with ease. How realistic is all this international travel in the medieval world?

1. Maps of Anglo-Saxon Wessex/England show crown lands encompassing almost an entire territory of Wessex/England (unlike other countries in Europe), yet we know ealdormans controlled shires and greater territories. What was the feudal organization like, then?

2. Didn't increased centralization of medieval monarchies bring back all the logistical problems with running the state from one place? What changed?

Thank you for this wonderful panel, it so hearthwarming to see so many people from various specializations being part of it!

During the Medieval period, what consequences could you face if you refused to attend mass? Let's say you weren't openly slandering the church, but you simply didn't go to mass because you didn't want to.

• Would people refuse to do business with you if you did not attend mass?
• Could you have your lands and titles confiscated if it were proven that you never went to mass?
• Would the church or your local lord or town council send someone to force you to attend mass?

In CK (both 2 and 3), powerful vassals will demand a position on their liege's council. Does this reflect reality at all?

While I understand the gameplay reasoning, it always seemed a bit off to me. I can see how serving in the kings court could be a valuable opportunity for lower nobility, but I would think a prominent duke would prefer to focus on his own court. For example, would Phillip the Good have been pleased to serve as Charles VII's steward?

There is this idea in Crusader Kings that you have to adopt a more advanced religion to progress beyond tribalism. Accurate?

In CK3, Seljuks and other Muslim states have partition as any other country but it wasn't like this in the second game, where they had primogeniture I believe.

I am curious about the correct succession system of these states historically. I don't remember pretenders getting any land from history lessons, though I might be remembering wrong.I'd appreciate it if someone could enlighten me on this subject.

-Currently Crusaders kings has a holding system based on the "tripartite order"? I understand the reality to be more nuanced.

a)How common were lay abbots and holder of church lands?

b)How was ruling a city different from a fortified castle town?

-All cities are abstracted as chartered cities where the mayor has a penalty because of "wrong government"

c)How did relations evolve between burghers and their feudal noble (or burgher ) overlords?

d)How common were free cities?

-Currently trade is not represented ,even though we cannot forget its role in the power the Counts of Champagne for example. You mainly earn more money through "building" Pastures and Fields.

e)Could I directly invest money to develop industry and clear land as opposed to giving or leasing such rights?

f)How could I go about developing my economy as a landed ruler during the period?

Technology advances very slowly in the game (as expected). This is something I've wondered about a lot. Comparing my average day to someone 100 years ago is extremely different, but there have been a slew of rapid advances in that time period.

For the "average" person living in 9th through 15th centuries, what are some major advances that were seen that may have affected their daily lives in big ways? I say "average" because that's sort of a tricky thing with the difference between nobles and peasants. Were there big differences for the average peasant and average noble during this time period?

What do you imagine a byzantine dlc looking like? what would you want to be included to showcase the difference between byzantium and western feudal states? both governance and military differences would be great!

According to the (admittedly not completely trustworthy) Primary Chronicle, Vladimir the Great was alleged to have been put off from Catholic Christianity because his emissaries found that their churches had no beauty. In comparison, the emissaries he sent to the Hagia Sophia to investigate Orthodox Christianity reported:

We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth, nor such beauty, and we know not how to tell of it.

Considering how much Catholicism invests in religious art for their churches, in the era of Vladimir the Great, would his emissaries really have found Catholic churches to be unimpressive compared to Orthodox churches? Or was the allegation that they found no beauty in Catholic churches just Orthodox propaganda?

Did Zoroastrianism really promote incest?