-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Austria did so - and lost Silesia in the ensuing conflict and might have lost much more as other potential heirs objected in the austrian war of succession.
Spain had similar problems when a french king might have inherited the thrones of Spain and France - he did not even inherit both but that even the father on the french and the son on the spanish was reason enough for the spanish war of succession. So Anglo-France should not be possible to maintain unless under painful, difficult and longlasting punishment.
Salic Law is the fundament of frankish and french rulerhsip. It´s the main legal argument that caused the HYW as the english kings had claims on the french throne but not through the male line.
So if you want a choice for an english queen to be queen of England and France as one country - then not only should Anglo-France suffer a major stab hit and every province in france revolt but every neighbour get a free CB on that ahistorical, seemingly illegal construct. After all the goal of AGCEEP is to try to achieve historical results - which means we should push Anglo-France to become England and France again and not just let Anglo-France stay together happily ever after.
Last edited:
And the English won in this hypothetical scenario so the legality of Salic Law is in doubt at the very least.
Of course. This is why I mentioned the option of civil war. Personally I would prefer a male succession though and it shouldn't be too difficult to find an appropriate male heir for the dual monarchy.
I think we should have an alternative civil war as ENG has evaded the WOTR. Maybe we could have Cromwell coming along with an army raised in both England and France, causing a larger civil war than the historical ECW.
We must also consider that SCO would have had time to assert its independence as ENG has been busy tying up loose ends in France..
I can't imagine Cromwell having the nessecary popularity to get any support in catholic France. If at all Cromwell would fight some sort of English war of independence rather than the classical English civil war. There might be some loose cooperation with anti-Lancaster forces in France but the French would hardly join Cromwells Commonwealth. It's possible to give him more support in England though if the King is catholic. In fact this alternative "English civil war" might well be simulated by having an independent "England". If Cromwell wins everything would return to a semi-historical situation with the only exeption beeing that the Lancasters are ruling France. Other solutions of the conflict are possible as well ranging from English autonomy to full absolutist rule and a complete merger of both Kingdoms into a "United Kingdom".
So are you proposing that ENG would slowly become more French dominated over the years, to the point that Cromwell would rise up in revolt in favour of an indepedent ENG? That's an interesting way to go.
Personally, though, I'd like to see the Tudors make some sort of ahistorical appearence...
Personally, though, I'd like to see the Tudors make some sort of ahistorical appearence...
They may be temporary allys of Cromwell but I don't think it would be a love liaison and certainly the great Huguenot Leaders would not accept becoming subordinates of Cromwell. After all Navarre was a claimant for the throne himself while Cromwell seemed to me as anti-monarchist as you could get in the 17th century. I can however imagine a complete collapse of Plantagenet rule with the Huguenots establishing Henry of Navarre as King in France while Cromwell rules an independent England.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Just as James I. moved his court to London upon becoming King of England it seems probable to me that the Anglo-French monarchy would be centered on France which would be the wealther and larger of the two realms. Staying in England would make it significantly more difficult to deal with threats against the French domains of the monarchy. Consequently a move to France seems to me as the only reliable way for the Dual Monarch to survive. That the King of France was not as much constrained in his authority would be another factor that would influence the decision.
This page might be a bit useful for alternative monarchs: http://my.raex.com/~obsidian/Britpret.html
Unfortunately almost all of the monarchs on the list are unsuitable for an alternative surviving Lancaster dynasty.
Fantasy monarchs make more sense in that a surviving Lancaster dynasty would have a greater choice of marriages etc, especially given the dual monarchy.
Would the dual monarchs make an effort to marry their dynasty onto the throne of Scotland, forming an earlier GB?
Would the dual monarchs make an effort to marry their dynasty onto the throne of Scotland, forming an earlier GB?
Why should they have a greater choice of marriages? Even without "Anglo-France" english princesses were found in the whole of Europe.
Perhaps not - when France is the older and more prestigious kingdom England would be reduced to a backwater of the realm ruled from Paris. And marrrying heirs to a minor poor neighbour like Scotland when you can marry Burgundy or other rich neighbours of France seems unlikely. Without their auld alliance with France SCO is no real threat to Anglo-France and the main focus would soon be expansion on the continent and not a colonial empire.
Also a Lancaster King that's on the throne of France and England is a much more attractive prospect than a man who's pretty much on the run in his own country.
I wonder if these events should be re-thought, especially in light of the different level of claims now. Given the situation in France below (with Burgundy as my steadfast ally) - I'm not sure why I should lose all of my claims on un-owned French provinces - just because it is 1447. In no manner has France decisively won the day.
England's rule in Champagne was always tenuous at best, and utterly dependent on the goodwill of the Duke of Burgundy. Without a loyal garrison in Champagne, Henry VI could not hope to have his claims recognized by the lesser nobles, let alone the clergy or the peasantry of the county.
That event and the others like it are in "AGCEEP_HYW_Misc.eue".
Oh and in that game - I just had a war with France which ended up with me taking back all except Ile de France and Champagne.
Oh and in that game - I just had a war with France which ended up with me taking back all except Ile de France and Champagne.
So you mean to downgrade those provinces to claim or to casusbelli cores?That event and the others like it are in "AGCEEP_HYW_Misc.eue".
Oh and in that game - I just had a war with France which ended up with me taking back all except Ile de France and Champagne.
We could also gradually downgrade the cores, from national to claim and from claim to casusbelli according to the state of war.
And what about the (se)cedeprovince events, should we also revise those events maybe adding some addcore_casusbelli ad hoc?
Than we should find an ENG event to remove all cores in France, maybe an important historical peace treaty.
IMO Champagne and Nivernais should never become national cores of England. That they become cores in the current version is only because when those events were created there was only one type of cores available.
I suggest those changes:
Code:
#(1420-1422) Henry V is heir to France
event = {
id = 164165
trigger = { event = 170288 } #FRA: The Treaty of Troyes
random = no
country = ENG
name = "EVENTNAME164165" #Henry V is heir to France
desc = "EVENTHIST164165"
#-#Faced with the Anglo-Burgundian alliance and the pressure of Queen Isabel, Charles VI signed a veritable surrender of the Royal government in the Treaty of Troyes. Charles VI disinherited his own son, the so-called King of Bourges, and agreed to recognize Henry V as heir, giving him his daughter Catherine in marriage. For the Lancastrians, the Treaty of Troyes was a triumphant victory which seemed to offer them the Crown of St. Louis for good.
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1420 }
offset = 1
deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1422 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME164165A" #Take the Dauphin, and Our Victory Will be complete!
command = { type = stability value = 3 }
command = { type = relation which = BRI value = -25 }
command = { type = relation which = DAU value = -100 }
command = { type = relation which = PRO value = -50 }
command = { type = war which = DAU }
command = { type = casusbelli which = DAU value = 120 }
command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 384 value = 1 } #Caux
command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 413 value = 1 } #Normandie
command = { type = vassal which = FRA }
command = { type = vassal which = BUR }
command = { type = [color=red]addcore[/color][color=yellow]addcore_claim[/color] which = 376 } #Champagne
command = { type = [color=red]addcore[/color][color=yellow]addcore_claim[/color] which = 383 } #Picardie
command = { type = [color=red]addcore[/color][color=yellow]addcore_claim[/color]which = 386 } #Nivernais
}
}With that change we have several advantages: The english still have a CB on the ownver of those provinces and can have them for the lower cost of cores in peace deals BUT they will suffer nationalism and it´s less strange to trade "national cores" away to Burgundy in one of the later events of the HYW.
And the event of the "english final victory" has a lot more meaning if you get "national cores" then as your reward.
About the loss of cores: IMO it´s fine to lose the core on Champage under those conditions.
If you don´t own the province you aren´t excerting control over the province. If you are not at war then you have at least temporarily stopped pursuing the goal to gain all provinces of France under your command. And if in a game the historical treaty of arras has fired and Burgundy has changed sides to France - then I can see no other way than to lose the cores. We could perhaps add the condition that ENG and BUR are not allied anymore? And instead of the own I suggest to use the control trigger - in case that ENG owns Champagne but rebels control it then the event should fire.
Code:
#(1447-1820) We'll never recover Champagne
event = {
id = 164192
trigger = {
core = { province = 376 data = -1 }
atwar = no
NOT = {
event = 164180 #ENG: English Final Victory
[color=red]owned[/color][color=yellow]control[/color] = { province = 376 data = -1 }
[color=yellow]alliance = { country = ENG country = BUR }[/color]
}
}
random = no
country = ENG
name = "EVENTNAME164192" #We'll Never Recover Champagne
desc = "EVENTHIST164192"
#-#England's rule in Champagne was always tenuous at best, and utterly dependent on the goodwill of the Duke of Burgundy. Without a loyal garrison in Champagne, Henry VI could not hope to have his claims recognized by the lesser nobles, let alone the clergy or the peasantry of the county.
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1447 }
offset = 360
deathdate = { year = 1820 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME164192A" #Our claims fall on deaf ears...
command = { type = removecore which = 376 } #Champagne
}
}Edit: In the 1419 scenario ENG should not have a national but only a claimcore on Paris and on Normandy.
Normandy because it was lost long ago and the loss acknowledged by treaty - only since 1415 was Normandy again occupied
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy#13th_century_to_17th_century
Code:
¤IF Alternative_Wales
ownedprovinces = {
233 240 241 242 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 382 424
}
controlledprovinces = {
233 240 241 242 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
382 424 384 413
}
¤ELSE
ownedprovinces = {
233 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 382 424
}
controlledprovinces = {
233 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249
250 382 424 384 413
}
city = {
fortress = { level = 1 }
population = 10000
location = 243
}
¤ENDIF
nationalprovinces = {
233 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 [color=red]385 384 413[/color] 382 424
}
[color=yellow]claimedprovinces = {
385 384 413 # Paris and Normandy
}[/color]
Last edited:
Champagne just happens to be the first in that set of events, but I was talking about all of them. I was at war with France just about every 5 years or so during the 15th century until I dismembered them in 1475...however I lost all of my cores on France in 1447 because there was a year span where I wasn't at war and we'd hid the point where we'd decided that England needed to have decisively won the war by. I don't really see how it makes sense to say I'd never recover any of those French provinces when I managed to do so within the next two decades. (I even did so using the York leader that you get in the ahistorical path of the WotR where the Lancastrians win and in the event about the heirs of the York it mentions that you might use them to go a conquering in France.)
I don't necessarily have a good suggestion mind but just wanted to point out that it was a frustrating as a player when I'd done everything to continue the war (besides being perpetually at war which was never the case in the HYW) - including keeping Burgundy in my sphere.
I don't necessarily have a good suggestion mind but just wanted to point out that it was a frustrating as a player when I'd done everything to continue the war (besides being perpetually at war which was never the case in the HYW) - including keeping Burgundy in my sphere.