Kingdom of Lithuania?

[true born Lithuanian]

I have just watched preview again and noticed that thera are 2 transition options for Lithuania: Grand duchy and Union of Poland- Lithuania. I wonder why there is no Kingdom of Lithuania? In my opinion, if there is a way of becoming christian country, become baptised, it should be opportunity to become kingdom too, beside, Lithuania was kingdom in XIII century. Unless, you are planning to create only one way for this country to be christian- union with Poland :hmmm:. So, I would love to hear an answer

[Walkman810i]

Isn't it because there's only a certain number of transitions?

[true born Lithuanian]

Isn't it because there's only a certain number of transitions?

Really? Ah, that would explain why

[Walkman810i]

The faction can't have more than 3 forms. That means only 2 transitions if I'm correct.

[Hengest]

Yeah that's right. But it was just an oversight that we forgot to mention the Kingdom of Lithuania- it will be so... no problems

[true born Lithuanian]

Yeah that's right. But it was just an oversight that we forgot to mention the Kingdom of Lithuania- it will be so... no problems

Ok

[Silesian_Noble]

Kingdom of Lithuania? Did the Lithuanian Duke receive the crown from Papa? If not, then it wasn't a real christian kingdom but usurper rather.

[CaesarBR]

Kingdom of Lithuania? Did the Lithuanian Duke receive the crown from Papa? If not, then it wasn't a real christian kingdom but usurper rather.

Not really, one is not an usurper just because the Pope doesn't crowned him...

[J_O_E]

it would be great if Lithuania could become a kingdom in fact Grand Duke Vytautas Dydesis was to named king but unfortunately died before he was crowned in i am not mistaken.
i understand that there can only be 2 transitions but could this be represented through a trait, if at any point during the game after Lithuania converts to Christianity and has a Grand Duke with max authority then he could acquire the trait Didysis Kunigailstis which would be passed on to all future kings and would give them large bonuses and added loyalty for generals.

[Silesian_Noble]

Who gave the crown to Lithuanian duke? In medieval canon it could be only the pope or the Emperor – the nominal superior of the christian Europe (pope ecclestical; Kaiser secular). Otherwise we can talk about usurper.

[CaesarBR]

Who gave the crown to Lithuanian duke? In medieval canon it could be only the pope or the Emperor – the nominal superior of the christian Europe (pope ecclestical; Kaiser secular). Otherwise we can talk about usurper.

No, we can talk about someone who crowned himself, but we can't say he is an usurper, 'cause when we say so we are being partial to the Pope's side, and history must not aside with any side...

[Silesian_Noble]

OK, maybe usurper is not a good word. What I mean is that for any medieval duchy to convert to christian kingdom and to be welcomed and accepted by other christian kingdoms the crown needs to be received from Papa or Emperor hands. Otherwise such coronation has no legislative power.

Lithuania was indeed wild and pagan. More, Lithuania in medieval period called few times their transition to christianity but these were just empty words said to reach some political aims. Examples? The war of red ruthenia in half XIVc. It was a long conflict between Poland (supported by its Hungarian ally) and Lithuania (supported by its Tatar/Mongolian ally) over the vast territory of previous Halych-Volynhan Duchy. I don't remember exact date, but once Lithuanian had faced huge Polish-Hungarian army, then started the negotiations of peace treaty in which they promised dropping paganism and conversion to Christianity. Only the Polish-Hungarian army had gone back, Lithuanian of course broke the treaty, attacked Polish lands of Red Ruthenia again and of course swore off the catholic cross sticking to paganism...

[CaesarBR]

OK, maybe usurper is not a good word. What I mean is that for any medieval duchy to convert to christian kingdom and to be welcomed and accepted by other christian kingdoms the crown needs to be received from Papa or Emperor hands. Otherwise such coronation has no legislative power.

Indeed...

No foreign legislative power btw...

Lithuania was indeed wild and pagan. More, Lithuania in medieval period called few times their transition to christianity but these were just empty words said to reach some political aims. Examples? The war of red ruthenia in half XIVc. It was a long conflict between Poland (supported by its Hungarian ally) and Lithuania (supported by its Tatar/Mongolian ally) over the vast territory of previous Halych-Volynhan Duchy. I don't remember exact date, but once Lithuanian had faced huge Polish-Hungarian army, then started the negotiations of peace treaty in which they promised dropping paganism and conversion to Christianity. Only the Polish-Hungarian army had gone back, Lithuanian of course broke the treaty, attacked Polish lands of Red Ruthenia again and of course swore off the catholic cross sticking to paganism...

Well, it happens...lol

[Resurrection]

Also Polish dukes did something very similar. In 1025 Boleslaw I. the Brave crowned himself king (no Emperor nor Pope present, though Pope subsequently approved it as part of Investiture fight against Emperor), but died one year later and until 1296 Poland was ruled by Dukes (despite many attempts to self-proclaim king again). In 1296 Bohemian king Vaclav II. became also king of Poland and his son Vaclav III. became atop of that king of Hungary, But he died in 1306 (assasinated) and Piast duke Wladislaw I. proclaimed himself king in 1320.

The point is, that kingdoms outside of HRE need not Emperor to crown them. At maximum the Pope, but he was not neccesary either if the new kingdom was strong enough. For instance in modern history: Brandenburg (HRE) kurfirst Fridriech I. in 1700 conquered Prussia (outside HRE) and proclaimed himself king of Prussia and thus elevated Brandenburg as well. And this practice was nto invented in 18th century but was commonly used in Middle ages all the time.

[Silesian_Noble]

Boleslaw the Great - firts king of Poland, got the Emperor blessing during the great congress in 1000y in Gniezno (Gnesen?), more – the Emperor Otto III practically coronated him through putting on Boleslav had his emperor diadem and saying that such noble man deserve to be king! Boleslav was officially coronated in1025 and since 1025 Poland was officially kingdom, though not always ruled by the king. Also the coronation in 1025 happened after the Pope gave Boleslav his blessing and acceptance, not before!

[true born Lithuanian]

Ok. About Lithuania. In 1251 grand duke of Lithuania Mindaugas sends his negotiator/diplomat ( name: Parbus) to Rome to meet with pope and announce about dukes iniciative to baptize. Pope Innocent IV announces bull in wich he says Lithuania is his vasal (theoricaly ) . In 1251 Mindaugas and his family were baptized by livonian bishop. In 1253 July 6 Mindaugas and his wife Morta were crowned, later in 1255 pope Alexander IV allowed to crown Mindaugas son as a heir. Lithuania became kingdom. So I think it is clear enough that Mindaugas was not usurper and got crown from pope himself .

[Silesian_Noble]

Ok. About Lithuania. In 1251 grand duke of Lithuania Mindaugas sends his negotiator/diplomat ( name: Parbus) to Rome to meet with pope and announce about dukes iniciative to baptize. Pope Innocent IV announces bull in wich he says Lithuania is his vasal (theoricaly ) . In 1251 Mindaugas and his family were baptized by livonian bishop. In 1253 July 6 Mindaugas and his wife Morta were crowned, later in 1255 pope Alexander IV allowed to crown Mindaugas son as a heir. Lithuania became kingdom. So I think it is clear enough that Mindaugas was not usurper and got crown from pope himself .

Well I read a bit and you are right. Mendog got the crown from Pope in 1253, but... the same Mandog rejected Christianity in 1261 and worship pagan gods again. So this is another example of what I stated before. Lithuanian declared demselves Christians only when it brough political benefits (in 1253 it stopped Teutonic offensive, in XIVc Polish one). And when the threat was gone, they again returned to paganism.

[true born Lithuanian]

So this is another example of what I stated before. Lithuanian declared demselves Christians only when it brough political benefits

Well yeah, sometimes it was like that , but also , why Lithuania dukes often refused to be christians or rejected their promises was preasure from pagan nobles and people (Samogotians especially) sometimes even orthodox nobles . Mindaugas had to refuse christianity mainly because of that.

[NikeBG]

Lithuanian declared demselves Christians only when it brough political benefits...

I don't know of any country which has converted to Christianity for no political benefits whatsoever. Of course, Christian chroniclers love to write that the ruler saw the truth and light of God and was so touched that he converted his entire country only based on his newly found piety, but that is obviously hard to believe in most cases, unless we add the actual political factors which were the real reasons.

[CaesarBR]

I don't know of any country which has converted to Christianity for no political benefits whatsoever. Of course, Christian chroniclers love to write that the ruler saw the truth and light of God and was so touched that he converted his entire country only based on his newly found piety, but that is obviously hard to believe in most cases, unless we add the actual political factors which were the real reasons.

Indeed you have a point regarding most cases...