What is the Real-World Rationale Behind Confederate Partition Succession?

[TwoTonTuna]

I find the whole idea of confederate partitioning really, *really* impractical, especially when the kids spin off their own independent duchies or counties. This problem is solved if the kids end up as vassals to the heir, but it's an entirely different story when they spin off their own independent territories.

I'm like "sure, bro, nice land and all... but you only have 200 soldiers to protect your new land while everyone else around you has around 1k to 3k troops. Are you ABSOLUTELY sure you want to go at it alone?"

So how did this system ever work in real life? Why would any parent split up the tribe, kingdom, empire, or nation this way?

[Heraclius Caesar]

Primogeniture inheritance predates the time period of this game. The book of Genesis, which scholars believe was written around the 6th century B.C., contains a parable explicitly dealing with primogeniture.

The idea and the concept of the firstborn son inheriting the patrimony in its entirety was around before the Romans, so this idea floating around this thread that primogeniture didn't come about until the late medieval era is nonsensical. It's also nonsensical that in game primogeniture is timelocked to the last era of the game and still takes time to research, so you're definitely not getting it at 1200. By the time the player can actually utilize it it's basically irrelevant since a lot of players don't even bother with the last 150-200 years of a campaign.

If anything, and if they want to be historically accurate about it, primogeniture should be an unlocked tech from the very start, considering by the time period of the game it had been around for well over a thousand years as a concept for inheritance/succession.

[The Former]

Heraclius Caesar původně napsal:

Primogeniture inheritance predates the time period of this game. The book of Genesis, which scholars believe was written around the 6th century B.C., contains a parable explicitly dealing with primogeniture.

The idea and the concept of the firstborn son inheriting the patrimony in its entirety was around before the Romans, so this idea floating around this thread that primogeniture didn't come about until the late medieval era is nonsensical. It's also nonsensical that in game primogeniture is timelocked to the last era of the game and still takes time to research, so you're definitely not getting it at 1200. By the time the player can actually utilize it it's basically irrelevant since a lot of players don't even bother with the last 150-200 years of a campaign.

If anything, and if they want to be historically accurate about it, primogeniture should be an unlocked tech from the very start, considering by the time period of the game it had been around for well over a thousand years as a concept for inheritance/succession.

There's an argument to be made for having the option, and without a doubt the decision to gate it is a gameplay decision first and foremost. However at the same time, you're being a bit narrow in your interpretation of history.

The fact aside that I don't know of any parables in Genesis, it's definitely documented that a form of primogeniture existed ages before CK3's timeframe. I suppose you're speaking of Jacob and Esau, but the important thing to note is that it never states that all Isaac's possessions were originally meant for Esau. Only that Jacob tricked Esau out of his birthright specifically. In CK3 terms, it could well be that Esau is meant to inherit France, while Jacob is meant to inherit Anjou and Toulouse, and Jacob manages to convince Esau to also give him France.

Second and most importantly, as someone mentioned elsewhere of navies, not everything in history is a linear shot. Yes, the concept of primogeniture existed... however it wasn't practiced in most of Europe before the mid to late 12th century or so. Just as the concept of nation states, civic duty, and citizenship was largely lost on Europe after Rome's collapse, despite thriving in many places during classical antiquity.

There are quite a lot of conventions popular before the Middle Ages that faded out of vogue with Rome's waning, and this was one of them. It's not that people didn't know "how to primogeniture", as Youtube might put it, but that they simply didn't care to implement it.

Also important to remember is that we're not dealing with titular power alone, here. People often cite Rome as an example of primogeniture in action, for instance, but when a Roman emperor "inherited" Rome, he didn't actually inherit possessions. Just the title of Imperator. Feudal lords, on the other hand, are dealing with lands. Possessions.

When it came to this matter, even Rome had quite a complex set of succession laws not dissimilar to the ones the western world uses to this day. Not only were all a man's children generally afforded an inheritance, but a single property could and would be split between sons if that's what it took for everyone to get a share. Indeed if testators didn't designate percentile portions between sons, it was assumed every son got an equal share of a man's estate.

So in fact, precedent leans away from early primogeniture no matter how one slices it.

[sammwich]

Heraclius Caesar původně napsal:

Primogeniture inheritance predates the time period of this game. The book of Genesis, which scholars believe was written around the 6th century B.C., contains a parable explicitly dealing with primogeniture.

The idea and the concept of the firstborn son inheriting the patrimony in its entirety was around before the Romans, so this idea floating around this thread that primogeniture didn't come about until the late medieval era is nonsensical. It's also nonsensical that in game primogeniture is timelocked to the last era of the game and still takes time to research, so you're definitely not getting it at 1200. By the time the player can actually utilize it it's basically irrelevant since a lot of players don't even bother with the last 150-200 years of a campaign.

If anything, and if they want to be historically accurate about it, primogeniture should be an unlocked tech from the very start, considering by the time period of the game it had been around for well over a thousand years as a concept for inheritance/succession.

I don't see cultural innovations as being "researched" (though I know it's called that), so much as about cultural shifts. Vaguely speaking, there is nothing new under the sun. Cultural institutional types come and go. Primogeniture was abnormal through most of the time period. And few, if any, succession laws were as formalized as is necessary in a video game.

Plus, Genesis is parables mostly portraying a time before any formalized laws and not based on any concrete history. It is easy, retrospectively, to read into them things that were never considered by the authors, at least not in the formalized ways we are accustomed to. It was a fundamentally despotic time, for the most part, with rulers of all levels largely doing with, well, what their subjects would let them get away with.

[Heraclius Caesar]

Lockfågel, the Paradox Knight původně napsal:

Heraclius Caesar původně napsal:

Primogeniture inheritance predates the time period of this game. The book of Genesis, which scholars believe was written around the 6th century B.C., contains a parable explicitly dealing with primogeniture.

The idea and the concept of the firstborn son inheriting the patrimony in its entirety was around before the Romans, so this idea floating around this thread that primogeniture didn't come about until the late medieval era is nonsensical. It's also nonsensical that in game primogeniture is timelocked to the last era of the game and still takes time to research, so you're definitely not getting it at 1200. By the time the player can actually utilize it it's basically irrelevant since a lot of players don't even bother with the last 150-200 years of a campaign.

If anything, and if they want to be historically accurate about it, primogeniture should be an unlocked tech from the very start, considering by the time period of the game it had been around for well over a thousand years as a concept for inheritance/succession.

There's an argument to be made for having the option, and without a doubt the decision to gate it is a gameplay decision first and foremost. However at the same time, you're being a bit narrow in your interpretation of history.

The fact aside that I don't know of any parables in Genesis, it's definitely documented that a form of primogeniture existed ages before CK3's timeframe. I suppose you're speaking of Jacob and Esau, but the important thing to note is that it never states that all Isaac's possessions were originally meant for Esau. Only that Jacob tricked Esau out of his birthright specifically. In CK3 terms, it could well be that Esau is meant to inherit France, while Jacob is meant to inherit Anjou and Toulouse, and Jacob manages to convince Esau to also give him France.

Second and most importantly, as someone mentioned elsewhere of navies, not everything in history is a linear shot. Yes, the concept of primogeniture existed... however it wasn't practiced in most of Europe before the mid to late 12th century or so. Just as the concept of nation states, civic duty, and citizenship was largely lost on Europe after Rome's collapse, despite thriving in many places during classical antiquity.

There are quite a lot of conventions popular before the Middle Ages that faded out of vogue with Rome's waning, and this was one of them. It's not that people didn't know "how to primogeniture", as Youtube might put it, but that they simply didn't care to implement it.

Also important to remember is that we're not dealing with titular power alone, here. People often cite Rome as an example of primogeniture in action, for instance, but when a Roman emperor "inherited" Rome, he didn't actually inherit possessions. Just the title of Imperator. Feudal lords, on the other hand, are dealing with lands. Possessions.

When it came to this matter, even Rome had quite a complex set of succession laws not dissimilar to the ones the western world uses to this day. Not only were all a man's children generally afforded an inheritance, but a single property could and would be split between sons if that's what it took for everyone to get a share. Indeed if testators didn't designate percentile portions between sons, it was assumed every son got an equal share of a man's estate.

So in fact, precedent leans away from early primogeniture no matter how one slices it.

I don't think I'm being narrow, just stating the facts. Primogeniture inheritance existed for well over a thousand years before the earliest start date of this game, therefore it's both arbitrary and erroneous for it to be timelocked to the last technological era of the game.

Yes, I was referring to the story of Esau and Jacob. The story tells us that Esau, the elder son, was meant to inherit "the birthright" from his father Isaac. The story makes it clear that Jacob didn't have any birthright coming his way, hence the trickery and deception. This is obviously a tale of primogeniture at work with a bitter younger brother outmaneuvering his elder brother and stealing the birthright. Considering when this was written down, it must have been circulating orally for quite some time, meaning that primogeniture and the family drama that it can cause was well known and established for many years before the book of Genesis came into being.

Whether it was practiced or not throughout most of Europe at that time is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it was a known vehicle for inheritance and succession since at least the bronze age, since we know from the historical record that primogeniture was practiced practically since the inception of the ancient kingdom of Egypt, so it can't be said to just be a throwaway or forgotten institution simply because the Western Roman empire fell, as you're trying to suggest. It was practiced in Persia. It was practiced in Greece. Aristotle spoke against it yet Plato encouraged it. Though it wasn't officially part of ancient Roman law, the eldest son almost always inherited their father's estate(s) intact, for the Romans were well aware that partitioning and dividing estates would weaken the head of the family which would in turn weaken the family as a whole, which would not bode well in a society based on aristocratic competition, like ancient Rome was.

When it comes to the "majority" of Europe that you speak of, it's not that they didn't care to use it. If we look at the major powers of Western Europe at the time, England, France, Holy Roman Empire, they are all the descendants of the ancient Franks and ancient Germanic peoples, who were attached to an ancient family tradition (never a law btw) of partitioning the inheritance. We know that the nobles and upper echelon of France and England began to veer away from this at close to the same time, since it's soon after the Norman conquest that male primogeniture became prevalent among the English nobles and also some of the nobles of early France, such as the rulers of Flanders. The kingdom of the Franks/what would become the kingdom of France can be said to have become a male only primogeniture inheritance at the time that Hugh Capet had his elder son Robert crowned in 987. The HRE and Scandinavian kingdoms were the ones who really strongly adhered to partition inheritance throughout the middle ages, much to their own detriment as great families ended up ruined and desperately clinging on to their scattered petty lordships that would be divided again and again.

When a Roman or Byzantine emperor "inherited" the Empire, yes they in fact did inherit the previous incumbents "titles" and estates. Imperial estates were not partitioned or divided, they were the sole reserve of the emperor and the family members that the emperor allowed to live there. The Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire are actually excellent examples of primogeniture in action, since it was invariably an elder son or adopted heir that inherited everything, or the victor of a civil war. Even in situations where, for example, two brothers inherited the throne as co-emperors, such as the case with the sons of Heraclius or Romanos II, the elder brother was always the actual emperor with imperial authority and power. This really can be traced all the way back to Augustus adopting Tiberius as his son and heir to all his accumulated Republican titles and magistracies and powers, this very act made primogeniture an ancient Roman precedent.

So, in fact, precedent actually doesn't lean away from early primogeniture at all.

[Heraclius Caesar]

sammwich původně napsal:

Heraclius Caesar původně napsal:

Primogeniture inheritance predates the time period of this game. The book of Genesis, which scholars believe was written around the 6th century B.C., contains a parable explicitly dealing with primogeniture.

The idea and the concept of the firstborn son inheriting the patrimony in its entirety was around before the Romans, so this idea floating around this thread that primogeniture didn't come about until the late medieval era is nonsensical. It's also nonsensical that in game primogeniture is timelocked to the last era of the game and still takes time to research, so you're definitely not getting it at 1200. By the time the player can actually utilize it it's basically irrelevant since a lot of players don't even bother with the last 150-200 years of a campaign.

If anything, and if they want to be historically accurate about it, primogeniture should be an unlocked tech from the very start, considering by the time period of the game it had been around for well over a thousand years as a concept for inheritance/succession.

I don't see cultural innovations as being "researched" (though I know it's called that), so much as about cultural shifts. Vaguely speaking, there is nothing new under the sun. Cultural institutional types come and go. Primogeniture was abnormal through most of the time period. And few, if any, succession laws were as formalized as is necessary in a video game.

Plus, Genesis is parables mostly portraying a time before any formalized laws and not based on any concrete history. It is easy, retrospectively, to read into them things that were never considered by the authors, at least not in the formalized ways we are accustomed to. It was a fundamentally despotic time, for the most part, with rulers of all levels largely doing with, well, what their subjects would let them get away with.

You can see it however you like, at the end of the day you're researching tech, just like in ck2.

Though I agree with you that succession laws weren't really "laws" at the time, it's naive to think that primogeniture was abnormal during the medieval age as shown in game. The kingdom of the franks/what would become the kingdom of France became a male only primogeniture inheritance in 987. After the Norman conquest virtually all the nobility of England transitioned to male primogeniture, as did the nobles of France. It was practiced in Byzantium. It was practiced in Spain. Simply because you aren't aware or just don't know doesn't make it abnormal or uncommon.

Yes captain obvious, I'm aware that Genesis and the Bible and the parables are not factual history. I was pointing that story out by virtue of it having been written down sometime in the 5th or 6th century B.C., which would mean that the idea and concept of it was around long before it was ever written down, which in turn further proves my point that primogeniture existed and was widely known long before the medieval age.

[The Former]

Heraclius Caesar původně napsal:

sammwich původně napsal:

I don't see cultural innovations as being "researched" (though I know it's called that), so much as about cultural shifts. Vaguely speaking, there is nothing new under the sun. Cultural institutional types come and go. Primogeniture was abnormal through most of the time period. And few, if any, succession laws were as formalized as is necessary in a video game.

Plus, Genesis is parables mostly portraying a time before any formalized laws and not based on any concrete history. It is easy, retrospectively, to read into them things that were never considered by the authors, at least not in the formalized ways we are accustomed to. It was a fundamentally despotic time, for the most part, with rulers of all levels largely doing with, well, what their subjects would let them get away with.

You can see it however you like, at the end of the day you're researching tech, just like in ck2.

Mechanically, yes. In spirit, no. A great many things in the innovations menu aren't strictly speaking "technologies", and even those tied to technologies (such as heavy knights to plate armor) didn't magically sweep Europe when the technology was developed. Rather they were implemented by peoples over time, and their effectiveness caused their presence to spread as more and more people adopted the, well, innovation of the plate-armored knight.

Heraclius Caesar původně napsal:

Yes captain obvious, I'm aware that Genesis and the Bible and the parables are not factual history.

The Smithsonian department of anthropology disagrees.

"In short, it is impossible to verify the actual events recorded in the Biblical account of the flood. On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed."

But whatever floats your frigate, I suppose. You don't believe anything in the Bible is history, I don't believe Charlemagne gave all his holdings to his eldest son. I suppose matters of learning are subjective these days.

[Heraclius Caesar]

Lockfågel, the Paradox Knight původně napsal:

Heraclius Caesar původně napsal:

You can see it however you like, at the end of the day you're researching tech, just like in ck2.

Mechanically, yes. In spirit, no. A great many things in the innovations menu aren't strictly speaking "technologies", and even those tied to technologies (such as heavy knights to plate armor) didn't magically sweep Europe when the technology was developed. Rather they were implemented by peoples over time, and their effectiveness caused their presence to spread as more and more people adopted the, well, innovation of the plate-armored knight.

Heraclius Caesar původně napsal:

Yes captain obvious, I'm aware that Genesis and the Bible and the parables are not factual history.

The Smithsonian department of anthropology disagrees.

"In short, it is impossible to verify the actual events recorded in the Biblical account of the flood. On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed."

But whatever floats your frigate, I suppose. You don't believe anything in the Bible is history, I don't believe Charlemagne gave all his holdings to his eldest son. I suppose matters of learning are subjective these days.

So I responded to your reply, yet you decided to comment on my reply to someone else? What happened there buddy?

You say "mechanically yes, in spirit no." Why do you always go out of your way to attempt to be devils advocate? Like I said to the other guy you can look at it however you like but it's literally the same thing as in ck2, you select the icon for the tech you want, it takes time to "research" and then poof you acquire whatever buffs and benefits you were going for. Obviously this isn't how it actually worked in real history, I never said it did so why are you trying to explain to me as if that's what I was saying?

That little excerpt about certain biblical passages being historically accurate is cute, but in reality it's well known that the Bible as a whole is jam-packed with far more fantasy nonsense than historical accuracy.

Here's a few verifiable facts for you which you and anyone can look up that contradict the bible in fairly major ways:

There was no global flood. If there was, ancient Egypt certainly would have known about it, yet Egypt contains no records of such an event. There was a major flood in ancient Mesopotamia, something recorded in that area and later stolen and twisted by ancient biblical writers to suit their purposes.

Unnatural long lives and powers attributed to people of which there is no evidence of them actually existing. There's no real evidence for the existence of the biblical kings David, Saul, or Solomon, unless Smithsonian happened upon a recent major discovery that they're keeping under wraps?? Lol

Certainly no archaeological evidence of the deities or other mythological figures spoken of at great length in the Bible.

Real, genuine archaeological evidence has shown that there was no powerful kingdom of Israel or United Monarchy like that spoken of in the Bible. There is literally no legitimate evidence that supports any of that. In fact, archaeological evidence has shown that Jerusalem was basically a small tribal hamlet at that time, definitely a far cry from the palatial, magnificent capital of a burgeoning kingdom ruling over much of the Levant, like the Bible describes.

No historical basis or archaeological evidence for the Exodus or even the conquest of Canaan.

Timelines, people, places and other things are often convoluted, conflated, or just nonsensical, throughout the Bible.

I could go on and on about all the inaccuracies and errors and magical fantasy that the Bible contains. Are there some passages that have some accuracy and historical truth to them? Sure, but to try to broadly portray it as an historically accurate source as you're attempting to do here is delusional.

I never said Charlemagne gave all his holdings to his eldest son? However, since you decided to bring it up out of nowhere, it's well known from the historical record that Charlemagne had intended to divide his realm into subkingdoms for his sons with 1 of them ruling as emperor/overlord, though as it turned out, most of his legitimate sons died before him and so Louis the Pious, his eldest surviving legitimate son, did actually inherit all of the Carolingian dominions and possessions except for Italy, which Charlemagne put aside for his grandson Bernard. I suppose matters of reading what someone actually said is subjective these days though.

[echoes222]

again, plenty of nations had partitions like in the game, I already gave examples of Poland or Ruthenia. Not sure why people are questioning it ;)

[The Former]

echoes222 původně napsal:

again, plenty of nations had partitions like in the game, I already gave examples of Poland or Ruthenia. Not sure why people are questioning it ;)

Probably because Game of Thrones or The Tudors.

[Heraclius Caesar]

echoes222 původně napsal:

again, plenty of nations had partitions like in the game, I already gave examples of Poland or Ruthenia. Not sure why people are questioning it ;)

Surely you're not referring to me, considering I wasn't "questioning it," though I did mention that primogeniture also occurred during the period as well, which is indisputable.

Lockfågel, the Paradox Knight původně napsal:

echoes222 původně napsal:

again, plenty of nations had partitions like in the game, I already gave examples of Poland or Ruthenia. Not sure why people are questioning it ;)

Probably because Game of Thrones or The Tudors.

Once again you pretend to ignore my response to your reply to my post? What's the matter man, you can spout off your nonsense but can't be bothered to actually read my rebuttal? Truth and facts too much for you and your b.s. to handle?

[echoes222]

echoes222 původně napsal:

again, plenty of nations had partitions like in the game, I already gave examples of Poland or Ruthenia. Not sure why people are questioning it ;)

Surely you're not referring to me, considering I wasn't "questioning it," though I did mention that primogeniture also occurred during the period as well, which is indisputable.
[/quote]

sure there were examples of primogeniture, but most big nations in early medieval times had partitions if king/duke was particularly frisky and had a lot of sons. You'd have partitions, or civil war I guess.

[Heraclius Caesar]

echoes222 původně napsal:

echoes222 původně napsal:

again, plenty of nations had partitions like in the game, I already gave examples of Poland or Ruthenia. Not sure why people are questioning it ;)

sure there were examples of primogeniture, but most big nations in early medieval times had partitions if king/duke was particularly frisky and had a lot of sons. You'd have partitions, or civil war I guess.

The kingdom of France, one of the largest and most powerful kingdoms in all of Europe throughout the middle ages, became a male only primogeniture inheritance in 987.

Byzantium, one of the most powerful empires throughout much of the medieval period, was in practice a primogeniture inheritance.

The kingdoms of medieval Spain, the bastions of Christianity in the Iberian peninsula, were in practice primogeniture inheritances.

After the Norman conquest, virtually all the nobility of England transitioned to male primogeniture inheritance.

These are some of the most powerful and influential polities during the medieval age. These are not the only examples of primogeniture occurring during the time period represented in the game. You're either being naive or intentionally obtuse by saying "most big nations in early medieval times had partitions," and even more so if you really think medieval Poland and Ruthenia actually count as "big nations."

[The Former]

Heraclius Caesar původně napsal:

echoes222 původně napsal:

sure there were examples of primogeniture, but most big nations in early medieval times had partitions if king/duke was particularly frisky and had a lot of sons. You'd have partitions, or civil war I guess.

The kingdom of France, one of the largest and most powerful kingdoms in all of Europe throughout the middle ages, became a male only primogeniture inheritance in 987.

Byzantium, one of the most powerful empires throughout much of the medieval period, was in practice a primogeniture inheritance.

The kingdoms of medieval Spain, the bastions of Christianity in the Iberian peninsula, were in practice primogeniture inheritances.

Again, you're looking at the kingdoms. Kingdoms are, likewise, inherited by the eldest son in CK3, even before primogeniture. This does not mean that every title was handed to the eldest son. The kingdom of the Franks was inherited through primogeniture, but Frankish subjects sometimes divided their inheritance between sons well beyond 987. It wasn't until the 12th century or so that the peers were all following the crown in this matter, and even then, France was slightly ahead of the curve.

Even in Byzantium, primogeniture wasn't codified for quite a long time. The empire itself was split in two for quite a while, and there are emperors who usurped their brothers but weren't viewed as illegitimate for the very reason that there was no formal succession law.

[sammwich]

I'm not sure off the top of my head if the Byzantines ever adopted a formal succession policy. If they did, it would have been post-Fourth Crusade. It's not correct to call it primogeniture, which as you know sometimes favors grandsons over sons. It was closer to the Chinese imperial succession, with the emperors more or less designating their heirs, typically favoring the eldest son, and the court having a lot of influence over the process, including some bloodless coups after an emperor died to put a more palatable heir on the throne. Of course, outright civil wars were a lot more common in Byzantium than China and the dynasties were pretty short lived on average.

Edit: I don't know much about the Spanish kingdoms, but I do seem to recall them getting partitioned by inheritance around the same time as the Carolingians.

[Heraclius Caesar]

Lockfågel, the Paradox Knight původně napsal:

Heraclius Caesar původně napsal:

The kingdom of France, one of the largest and most powerful kingdoms in all of Europe throughout the middle ages, became a male only primogeniture inheritance in 987.

Byzantium, one of the most powerful empires throughout much of the medieval period, was in practice a primogeniture inheritance.

The kingdoms of medieval Spain, the bastions of Christianity in the Iberian peninsula, were in practice primogeniture inheritances.

Again, you're looking at the kingdoms. Kingdoms are, likewise, inherited by the eldest son in CK3, even before primogeniture. This does not mean that every title was handed to the eldest son. The kingdom of the Franks was inherited through primogeniture, but Frankish subjects sometimes divided their inheritance between sons well beyond 987. It wasn't until the 12th century or so that the peers were all following the crown in this matter, and even then, France was slightly ahead of the curve.

Even in Byzantium, primogeniture wasn't codified for quite a long time. The empire itself was split in two for quite a while, and there are emperors who usurped their brothers but weren't viewed as illegitimate for the very reason that there was no formal succession law.

And for the 3rd time in a row, on the same thread, you once again ignore my responses to your replies to my posts, and for the 2nd time you decide to comment on my response to someone else. You're being really annoying about this tbh. How would you like it if I did what you do and just ignore your replies to my comments and I'll just reply to your responses to someone else? Would you like that? That's some real lame noodle behavior.

At this point, go ahead with your lame nitpicking. You can't disprove anything that I've said, but I sure can disprove and have disproved much of what you've said.

Also, I was talking about titles. The title of the kingdom of France itself, the title of king of France, did indeed become a male only primogeniture inheritance in 987. I didn't say all the lords of France followed suit at the same time did I? No, I didn't, so stop with these b.s. posts where you attempt to explain something that I didn't say and wasn't talking about. Again, you're being really annoying about this.

Again, I never said it was codified in Byzantium. I said it is what happened in practice and the historical record can back me up there. Imperial estates were never partitioned, they either went entirely to the eldest son/designated heir or were seized by the victor of a civil war.

Let me guess though, you'll ignore this response too. Are you attempting to troll me at this point? Try harder.