Kingdom of Poland to Duchy

**gracul** · April 24, 2008, 04:03 AM

In SS timeline, a lot more historically accurate would be to change PL into Duchy instead of a Kingdom, becouse Poland was a Duchy from 1079 to 1295. However, i know that "kingdom" looks a lot better than "duchy", so what do YOU think about changing it?

**EarendilElenthol** · April 24, 2008, 04:47 AM

I'd say:

Early Era: Duchy
Late Era: Kingdom

Why not?

**Caesar Clivus** · April 24, 2008, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by EarendilElenthol

I'd say:

Early Era: Duchy
Late Era: Kingdom

Why not?

I dont think that's possible without taking up two faction slots.

**Chim** · April 24, 2008, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by EarendilElenthol

I'd say:

Early Era: Duchy
Late Era: Kingdom

Why not?

Not possible. it is one or the other, both campaign read from one file that contains the faction names. (Expanded.txt from the top of my head)

**Silesian_Noble** · April 24, 2008, 05:06 AM

But from the other hand the first Polish king was crowned by Keiser in 1000y. So I say Poland should stay as Kingdom.

**gracul** · April 24, 2008, 07:41 AM

Well, some books that i found just now are saying that Poland was a Kingdom, but from 1079 to 1295 it was ruled by dukes, not by kings. Therefore, i will change the title of "king" to duke, however Poland will stay as Kingdom. Funny eh...

**Brammius** · April 24, 2008, 10:09 AM

Well I'm not totaly sure but I thought I read in the dots mod subforum that you can change a faction name through events (scripts) three times without taking another faction slot e.g. from duchy of Burgundy to kingdom of Burgundy, so maybe SS can have this too.

**yansed** · April 24, 2008, 11:55 AM

uhm.. Bolesław Chrobry , first king of Piast dynasty was crowned in 1025ad...
also, during Gniezno Meeting ( 1000ad ) HRE emperor Otton III gave him royal insignias and secular coronation, proclaiming Bolesław friend of Empire and brother of Emperor. Unfortunatly Otton III died 2 years later and next emperor wasnt so friendly which resulted in kinda bloody relations

, so Bolesław had to wait till 1025ad for Pope to send him royal crown becoming first official king of Poland. Period you are refering to is after death of king Bolesław Krzywousty in 1138ad when kingdom was divided between his sons, each ruling his own province. Also, during that time, ( 1228ad ) one of the princes , Konrad Mazowiecki invited Teutonic Order to help him fight pagans in Prussia . And finaly, after many years of bitter fighting for royal crown Poland was united again in 1320 when Władyslaw Łokietek was crowned as king of Poland.

**Silesian_Noble** · April 24, 2008, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by yansed

uhm.. Bolesław Chrobry , first king of Piast dynasty was crowned in 1025ad...
also, during Gniezno Meeting ( 1000ad ) HRE emperor Otton III gave him royal insignias and secular coronation, proclaiming Bolesław friend of Empire and brother of Emperor. Unfortunatly Otton III died 2 years later and next emperor wasnt so friendly which resulted in kinda bloody relations

, so Bolesław had to wait till 1025ad for Pope to send him royal crown becoming first official king of Poland. Period you are refering to is after death of king Bolesław Krzywousty in 1138ad when kingdom was divided between his sons, each ruling his own province. Also, during that time, ( 1228ad ) one of the princes , Konrad Mazowiecki invited Teutonic Order to help him fight pagans in Prussia . And finaly, after many years of bitter fighting for royal crown Poland was united again in 1320 when Władyslaw Łokietek was crowned as king of Poland.

More or less OK, but between 1138-1320 Poland had at least two kings - Przemysł and Wacław.

**yansed** · April 24, 2008, 02:16 PM

agreed my bad, Przemysł was king just for 1 year before he died and Wacław, well, he was Czech king

**Silesian_Noble** · April 24, 2008, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by yansed

Wacław, well, he was Czech king

But crowned also to be the King of Poland - such thing was very common in medieval Europe.

**delra** · April 24, 2008, 02:54 PM

Such a division was common to feudal monarchies, it happened in many countries. In Poland it lasted since 1138 until 1320.

It was much shorter than French (987-1302) or German (1250-forever?) ones.

Also in Poland for most of the time (early and late starts included) there was a superior ruler having some (usually little but still) power over other rulers. So for me Poland should stay as a kingdom.

**Silesian_Noble** · April 24, 2008, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by delra

Such a division was common to feudal monarchies, it happened in many countries. In Poland it lasted since 1138 until 1320.

It was much shorter than French (987-1302) or German (1250-forever?) ones.

Also in Poland for most of the time (early and late starts included) there was a superior ruler having some (usually little but still) power over other rulers. So for me Poland should stay as a kingdom.

Yes exactly, so called princeps of Polish Kingdom. Great examples were Silesian Henryks or infamous Konrad Mazowiecki.

In general very nice approach Delra, +rep for you my friend

**DireklianCliff** · April 24, 2008, 04:13 PM

From Wikipedia (and I know this isn't the most reliable source, but it isn't bad): "The Kingdom of Poland ... was the Polish state from the coronation of the first King Bolesław I the Brave in 1025 to the union with Lithuania and the rule of the Jagiellon dynasty in 1385." I think Kingdom will suffice.