[DoK] Italy

Third Angel · Jan 12, 2012

This thread is dedicated to discussions about Italian events and scenarios setup. Here are links to decisive posts concerning Italy in the original thread.

_ The split of the Carolingian empire

_ The struggle for the kingdom of Italy sequence

_ New Friuli events to retake the crown of Italy

_ Arnulf's intervention in Italy 894

_ Provençal intervention in Italy

_ Byzantine intervention in Southern Italy

Third Angel · Jan 12, 2012

Bordic said:
Afaik, the vassalization has happened after the crowning of the French king as Berengario needed Anrnulf's support against Wido.

Yes, so we would have to disconnect Wido's intervention in Italy from his rejection by the French magnates. I will not do it now but this is something I have been thinking about for some time.

Historically, Eudes was elected at the end of February 888 while Wido only came in Italy late in the year or early in 889. Originally, I had tied the two events because I wanted SPL to have the time to conquer Pavia and become ITA as close to the historical date as possible, but the situation has changed with your reworking of the events, and Wido does not need so much time so it would be no problem if SPL dowed ITA only after it has been vassalized by GER

However I see that there is an issue in the way the engine considers the actions in the events. In event ITA_228003 the AI always go with action B. I don't know why. But after I have added the letters a and b, the AI now picks always action A.

So I think I am going to submit all my events with the traditional a, b, c actions.

Never noticed that, I will get back to you about it.

Another issue I find is that Spoleto and Salerno try to enter unbalancing alliances. Couldn't Salerno be in Pope's and Capua's alliance, whilst Spoleto as vassal to ITA, from the beginning of 888 scenario?

I have thought SPL was already, that's why event SPL_382000 breaks the vassalization.

Ok for SPL. I will try to find something with a possible historical justification for SLO, if I do not then we may put it with CPA/PAP.

I have re-edited post #243 and I am now scripting some good events for the battle of Garigliano River.

Sorry I could not find BYZ_154000 C, but I see that you have. I see that you have implemented all my suggestions, still if you wish to discuss cores on vassals, or on a more general level, we can now open a new thread about it.

Pornocracy in Rome and The Fatimids with the Emirate in Sicily are now on hold.

I'll focus on Italian historical facts now. Flavour events will be done if any, but they are currently postponed.

I need to speed up to 962.

Ok, I am thinking of opening a "North Africa" thread anyway to answer your latest posts on the subject in the old thread.

Bordic · Jan 12, 2012

About the war between Capua and the Garigliano Saracens, in the general discussions thread about the mod, you wrote:

From what I read (Before the Normans, Barbara M. Kreutz), a few points: the operation was initiated by Capua who was most suffering from the raids. CPA then brought BYZ in, and together they convinced NAP and SLO to join in. Not sure how exactly PAP came to be involved but it seems that Pope Ioannes X did not participate in the planification as he only had been in power for a short time. PAP was important in that it bought Gaeta's neutrality with a grant of land. The non-cooperation of GTA had been one of the causes of the failure of the previous attempt in 903. Surprisingly, Amalfi who had been a key-player in 903 is not mentionned in 915.

In the first intervention of 903, I couldn't find if Capua, in bringing in Byzantium, they actually swore allegiance to the ERE as agreed with as the price to pay for imperial military help. Was it historically implemented? Or just because both Atenulf of Capua and Emperor Leo died, the vassalization had never been effective?

In case, Capua could break the vassalization in 920 when apparently Landulf provoked revolts in Calabria and Puglia, but 17 years may be a too long time span and hazardous for ahistorical annexations by Byzantium.

EDIT: About the first alliance in 903 my sources state that Capua tried to let Naples and Amalfi join in. But either they were weak or not reliable Capua asked for Byzantine help.

The 915 league was invoked by Pope Ioannes X with Landolfo III of Capua and Benevento as main supporter. Alberico of Spoleto (future Marozia's husband) was appointed league commander because of the troops made available by Berengario I, King of Italy. Other participants: Guaimario II of Salerno, Gregorio IV of Naples, Giovanni I of Gaeta and Byzantium. And Amalfi isn't reported to have taken part in the battle of Garigliano.

Bordic · Jan 13, 2012

It seems to be some inconsistency here in monarchs_CPA.txt

Code:

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 0143500 }
	name = "Atenolfo I"
	startdate = {
		year = 887
	}
	enddate = {
		year = 912
	}
	DIP = 5
	ADM = 5
	MIL = 5
	remark = "Prince of Benevento in 900"
}
historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 0143501 }
	name = "Atenolfo II"
	startdate = {
		year = 912
	}
	enddate = {
		year = 941
	}
	DIP = 5
	ADM = 5
	MIL = 5
}
historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 0143502 }
	name = "Landolfo III"
	startdate = {
		year = 941
	}
	enddate = {
		year = 943
	}
	DIP = 5
	ADM = 5
	MIL = 5
}

Atenolfo I seems to have died in 910 and Landolfo III succeeded to the throne. He supported the Christian league against the Saracens in 915 and attempted to conquer Calabria and Puglia with his nephew Guaimaro of Salerno in 928. I can't find any info about Atenulf II ruling over Capua...

In monarchs_BEN.txt, as princes of Benevento we have Atenolfo I until 912 and Landolfo I (the Capua Landolfo III) then Landolfo II is Atenolfo II's son:

Code:

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 021504 }
	name = "Atenolfo I"
	startdate = {
		month = january
		year = 900
	}
	enddate = {
		year = 912
	}
	DIP = 5
	ADM = 5
	MIL = 5
	dormant = yes
}
historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 021506 }
	name = "Landolfo I"
	startdate = {
		year = 912
	}
	enddate = {
		year = 943
	}
	DIP = 5
	ADM = 5
	MIL = 5
}
historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 021507 }
	name = "Landolfo II"
	startdate = {
		year = 943
	}
	enddate = {
		year = 944
	}
	DIP = 5
	ADM = 5
	MIL = 5
}

Bordic · Jan 13, 2012

Third Angel said:
Yes, so we would have to disconnect Wido's intervention in Italy from his rejection by the French magnates. I will not do it now but this is something I have been thinking about for some time.

Historically, Eudes was elected at the end of February 888 while Wido only came in Italy late in the year or early in 889. Originally, I had tied the two events because I wanted SPL to have the time to conquer Pavia and become ITA as close to the historical date as possible, but the situation has changed with your reworking of the events, and Wido does not need so much time so it would be no problem if SPL dowed ITA only after it has been vassalized by GER

Ok. So what do you think we should use as trigger for ITA_228003? The triggered events NST_384000 and 384005? Which start/death dates for ITA_228003? Which starts/death dates for GER_205031?

Now we have

Code:

	date = { day = 29 month = february year = 888 }

for a triggered ITA_228003 and

Code:

	date = { day = 0 month = january year = 888 }
	offset = 360
	deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 889 }

for GER_205031.

Ok for SPL. I will try to find something with a possible historical justification for SLO, if I do not then we may put it with CPA/PAP.

Ok.

Sorry I could not find BYZ_154000 C, but I see that you have. I see that you have implemented all my suggestions,

From general DOK thread (rephrased questions):

What about a further action D, with 1 ai_chance, where BYZ gets cores on the whole Southern Italy (apart from Samnium from start, Capua and Salernum in action C, even on Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta in action D)?
Maybe until 912 when ER Emperor Leo VI dies? Is it maybe too ahistorical?
Would then BYZ renounce to them forever? Or should be script removals of core according to possession?

EDIT: In case we could use even CB cores in action C and/or D.

Your statement to open a new thread for the most appropriate type of core is welcome now? ;-)

Bordic · Jan 14, 2012

CAPUA AND THE SARACENS AT GARIGLIANO RIVER (903-910)

Here is the first part of the sequence concerning the promised events about the Sarecens in Souther Italy.

NEW events:

Code:

event = {
	id = 388000
	trigger = {
		exists = CPA
		NOT = { 
			vassal = { country = GTA country = CPA }
		}	
	}
	country = GTA

	name = "The Saracen Incursions"
	desc = "."

	date = { day = 4 month = september year = 902 }
	offset = 10
	deathdate = { day = 4 month = february year = 903 }

	action_a = {
		name = "We welcomed them, we use them!"
		command = { type = treasury value = 50 }
		command = { type = infra value = -50 }
		command = { type = relation which = CPA value = -25 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "We don't need them any longer"
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
		command = { type = infra value = -50 }
		command = { type = DIP which = -2 value = 24 }
		command = { type = relation which = CPA value = 25 }
		command = { type = sleepevent which = 386007 } #CPA: The Saracens of Garigliano River	
	}
}

Code:

event = {
	id = 386007
	trigger = {
		event = 388000 #GTA: The Saracen Incursions
		OR = {
			exists = NAP
			exists = AMI
		}
		NOT = { 
			war = { country = CPA country = AMI }
			war = { country = CPA country = NAP }
		}	
	}
	country = CPA

	name = "The Saracens of Garigliano River"
	desc = "."

	date = { day = 5 month = february year = 903 }
	offset = 10
	deathdate = { day = 30 month = december year = 908 }

	action_a = {
		name = "Ask for a league"
		command = { type = DIP which = 2 value = 24 }
		command = { type = treasury value = -25 }
		command = { type = relation which = GTA value = -25 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 112007 }  #AMI: A league with Capua
		command = { type = trigger which = 291001 }  #NAP: A league with Capua
		command = { 
			trigger = {
				OR = {
					event = 386001 #CPA: Atenolf I, prince of Benevento
					vassal = { country = CPA country = BEN }
				}
			}
			type = trigger which = 142004 #BEN: A league with Capua
		}  	
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Act on your own"
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
		command = { type = infra value = -50 }
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 24 value = 5 }
	}
}

Code:

event = {
	id = 112007 #triggered by CPA_386007 A (903-908)
	country = AMI

	name = "A league with Capua"
	desc = "."

	action_a = {
		name = "Help Capua in ousting the Saracens"
		command = { type = treasury value = -25 }
		command = { type = infra value = 50 }
		command = { type = relation which = CPA value = 25 }
		command = { type = relation which = GTA value = -25 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Refuse to help Capua"
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
		command = { type = relation which = CPA value = -50 }
		command = { type = relation which = GTA value = 25 }
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 24 value = 5 }
	}
}

Code:

event = {
	id = 291001 #triggered by CPA_386007 A (903-908)
	country = NAP

	name = "A league with Capua"
	desc = "."

	action_a = {
		name = "Help Capua in ousting the Saracens"
		command = { type = treasury value = -25 }
		command = { type = infra value = 50 }
		command = { type = relation which = CPA value = 25 }
		command = { type = relation which = GTA value = -25 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Refuse to help Capua"
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
		command = { type = relation which = CPA value = -50 }
		command = { type = relation which = GTA value = 25 }
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 24 value = 5 }
	}
}

Code:

event = {
	id = 142004 #triggered by CPA_386007 A (903-908)
	country = BEN

	name = "A league with Capua"
	desc = "."

	action_a = {
		name = "Help Capua in ousting the Saracens"
		command = { type = treasury value = -25 }
		command = { type = infra value = 50 }
		command = { type = relation which = CPA value = 25 }
		command = { type = relation which = NAP value = 25 }
		command = { type = relation which = AMI value = 25 }
		command = { type = relation which = GTA value = -25 }
	}
}

here is the event description for all the events above:

In the struggle for power and hegemony or because of jealousies amongst the Southern Italian principalities, it was common practice to send for Muslim raiders and invoke them to devastate the enemy territories. Some of those raiders had even established their own base on the shores of Thyrrenean Sea at the mouths of Garigliano River for their incursions and sackings in coastal and inland neighbouring areas.

Code:

event = {
	id = 386008
	trigger = {
		event = 386007 #CPA: The Saracens of Garigliano River
		OR = { 
			event = 112007 #AMI: A league with Capua
			event = 291001 #NAP: A league with Capua
		}	
	}
	country = CPA

	name = "The allegiance to Byzantium"
	desc = "."

	date = { day = 5 month = march year = 904 }
	offset = 20
	deathdate = { day = 30 month = december year = 910 }


	action_a = {
		name = "Ask for Byzantine help and submit"
		trigger = { 
			core_claim = { province = 502 data = BYZ } #Capua
		}
		command = { type = DIP which = -2 value = 24 }
		command = { type = relation which = BYZ value = 25 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 154007 }  #BYZ: The Capuan Allegiance
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Ask for Byzantine help but don't submit"
		trigger = { 
			NOT = {
				core_claim = { province = 502 data = BYZ } #Capua
			}
		}
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 24 value = 5 }
		command = { type = relation which = BYZ value = -25 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 154007 }  #BYZ: The Capuan Allegiance
	}
	
}

Code:

event = {
	id = 154007 #triggered by CPA_386007 A (904-910)
	country = BYZ

	name = "The Capuan Allegiance"
	desc = "."

	action_a = {
		name = "Another step forward in Langobardia"
		command = {
			trigger = {
				core_claim = { province = 502 data = BYZ } #Capua
				NOT = {
					vassal = { country = CPA country = BYZ }
				}
			}
			type = vassal which = CPA
		}
		command = { type = treasury value = -50 }
		command = { type = relation which = AMI value = -25 }
		command = { type = relation which = SPL value = -25 }
		command = { type = relation which = NAP value = -25 }
		command = { type = relation which = GTA value = -25 }
		command = { type = relation which = SLO value = -25 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "We are not interested in Capua affairs"
		command = { type = relation which = CPA value = -50 }
		command = { type = vp value = -2 }
	}
}

Here is the event description for both events above:

Chasing the Saracens of Garigliano River proved to be harder due to both weakness and unreliability of Capua's allies. The Count of Capua was then forced to ask Byzantium for urgent military support. Since Byzantium had claims to South Italy, Emperor Leo VI would have requested the allegiance of the county as the most predictable price to pay for the imperial intervention in Italy.

...To be continued with further events dealing with the Christian League of 914, in the eve of the battle of Garigliano.

EDIT: I have added an event for Benevento because being a united principality together with Capua when the events fire.

EDIT2: changed wording in the second event description.

Bordic · Jan 14, 2012

Third Angel said:
Here are links to decisive posts concerning Italy in the original thread.

_ The struggle for the Crown of Italy between Berengar, Wido and Arnulf, and three following posts

I'd suggest that you could give links to each of the following three posts for a better reading.

Third Angel said:
_ Provençal intervention in Italy

_ Byzantine intervention in Southern Italy

I have updated descriptions and fixed some bugs as reported in the bottom lines of each linked post as EDITs.

Third Angel · Jan 15, 2012

@Bordic, I am deeply sorry that I did not answer you yet. I am very short on time these last few days, but before you go on with the 915 attack, I would like to warn you that I have very strong doubts about two things: John X's leadership in the contriving of the league and the sending of troops by Berengario. The book I quoted earlier, Before the Normans, clearly states that these two versions were widely spread in traditionnal historiography because of a wrong interpretation of biased sources.

I will get back to you about all the other stuff tomorrow night at best, monday at worst.

Bordic · Jan 15, 2012

Third Angel said:
@Bordic, I am deeply sorry that I did not answer you yet. I am very short on time these last few days, but before you go on with the 915 attack, I would like to warn you that I have very strong doubts about two things: John X's leadership in the contriving of the league and the sending of troops by Berengario. The book I quoted earlier, Before the Normans, clearly states that these two versions were widely spread in traditionnal historiography because of a wrong interpretation of biased sources.

Yes, that is what I have read from traditional history books used when at school.

Ok, I have already ordered Kreutz's book from internet. I should get it physically next week.

Waiting to read it and translate its pages into proper events...

In case, which source (English written but also others) do you find the most reliable for the events in Central Northern Italy?

Third Angel · Jan 16, 2012

Bordic said:
In the first intervention of 903, I couldn't find if Capua, in bringing in Byzantium, they actually swore allegiance to the ERE as agreed with as the price to pay for imperial military help. Was it historically implemented? Or just because both Atenulf of Capua and Emperor Leo died, the vassalization had never been effective?

In case, Capua could break the vassalization in 920 when apparently Landulf provoked revolts in Calabria and Puglia, but 17 years may be a too long time span and hazardous for ahistorical annexations by Byzantium.

I cannot remember reading anything about it, so I do not think anything came out of it. I also agree that seventeen years would be dangerously long.

About the 920s, as far as I remember those were not just revolts, CPA-BEN and SLO did conquer large parts of Byzantine Italy and held it until the mid-30s. In the future, there would have to be events about that of course.

About the first alliance in 903 my sources state that Capua tried to let Naples and Amalfi join in. But either they were weak or not reliable Capua asked for Byzantine help.

The informations I have mention an attack initiated by CPA-BEN with NAP and AMI, to whom Atenolfo was related by marriage. It is stated that the Garigliano Arabs repelled the attack with the help of the Gaetans who still valued those Arabs.

The 915 league was invoked by Pope Ioannes X with Landolfo III of Capua and Benevento as main supporter. Alberico of Spoleto (future Marozia's husband) was appointed league commander because of the troops made available by Berengario I, King of Italy. Other participants: Guaimario II of Salerno, Gregorio IV of Naples, Giovanni I of Gaeta and Byzantium. And Amalfi isn't reported to have taken part in the battle of Garigliano.

Like I said above, it looks like John X had nothing to do with the planning. CPA, who had been trying several other attacks in the years following the 903 failure and who had been deserted by NAP and AMI, was looking for a new ally and embassies were exchanged with BYZ. The Byzantine strategos coming to negotiate the AMI-NAP-GTA rallying to the league arrived in Italy very soon after John X had come to power, much too soon to believe that the new Pope had anything to do with it.

Also, Alberico was there indeed, leading Roman and Papal troops, but it sounds like Berengario's troops are a myth too. SLO was there too even though they did not suffer much from the raids, but they felt it would look bad diplomatically if they stayed out. About GTA, they do not seem to have participated actively, just not opposed the operation this time, I will make more comments when I come to the events below.

Third Angel · Jan 16, 2012

Bordic said:
It seems to be some inconsistency here in monarchs_CPA.txt

Atenolfo I seems to have died in 910 and Landolfo III succeeded to the throne. He supported the Christian league against the Saracens in 915 and attempted to conquer Calabria and Puglia with his nephew Guaimaro of Salerno in 928. I can't find any info about Atenulf II ruling over Capua...

In monarchs_BEN.txt, as princes of Benevento we have Atenolfo I until 912 and Landolfo I (the Capua Landolfo III) then Landolfo II is Atenolfo II's son.

Yes, but I have excuses, the whole co-ruling process between 900 and 981-2 is a mess. Originally I had BEN inheriting CPA in 900 and all the events were for BEN, and CPA did not even have monarchs after 900, because before I had read much about it, I figured that Benevento having a more glorious history would have been favoured as a seat of power by the counts of Capua.

Later on, I came upon the systematic co-ruling system so I changed my mind and decided to have CPA as the leader and to keep BEN under vassalization. When I wanted to have two monarchs lists, it turned out to be much less easy than I thought, at some points I even thought of reverting to what I had before. I finally came up with something I was quite satisfied of, and I believe here was the reason why Atenolfo rules in Capua and Landolfo in Benevento.

I am still very much open to suggestions to determine if the BEN-CPA relations between 900 and 981-2 would be better represented as an annexation or a vassalization, and regarding who should be the leader of this relation.

Third Angel · Jan 16, 2012

Bordic said:
Ok. So what do you think we should use as trigger for ITA_228003? The triggered events NST_384000 and 384005? Which start/death dates for ITA_228003? Which starts/death dates for GER_205031?

Now we have

Code:

date = { day = 29 month = february year = 888 }

for a triggered ITA_228003 and

Code:

date = { day = 0 month = january year = 888 } offset = 360 deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 889 }

for GER_205031.

I think both GER_205031 and ITA_228003 should fire between 0 january and 29 december 888, the first one with an offset of 360 and the second with an offset of 30; also the second one would require the first one in its trigger.

From general DOK thread (rephrased questions):

What about a further action D, with 1 ai_chance, where BYZ gets cores on the whole Southern Italy (apart from Samnium from start, Capua and Salernum in action C, even on Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta in action D)?
Maybe until 912 when ER Emperor Leo VI dies? Is it maybe too ahistorical?
Would then BYZ renounce to them forever? Or should be script removals of core according to possession?

EDIT: In case we could use even CB cores in action C and/or D.

Your statement to open a new thread for the most appropriate type of core is welcome now? ;-)

I will answer this in a more general post about Byzantine cores in southern Italy. Feel free to open a thread about what different kind of cores should represent in Dawn of Kingdoms.

Bordic · Jan 17, 2012

Third Angel said:
I think both GER_205031 and ITA_228003 should fire between 0 january and 29 december 888, the first one with an offset of 360 and the second with an offset of 30; also the second one would require the first one in its trigger.

The second one (ITA_228003 I believe) should also have NST_384000 and 384005 in its trigger. Both events are triggered by FRA_198000 action A and B. Action C should definitely sleep ITA_228003.

According to what I have understood from Toio's and MichaelM's posts the offset would be of no use, the event would trigger on the 16th day from the start date and if conditions are not met, every 45-50 days after each failed attempt to fire...

Third Angel · Jan 17, 2012

Bordic said:
The second one (ITA_228003 I believe) should also have NST_384000 and 384005 in its trigger. Both events are triggered by FRA_198000 action A and B. Action C should definitely sleep ITA_228003.

Yes, you are right.

According to what I have understood from Toio's and MichaelM's posts the offset would be of no use, the event would trigger on the 16th day from the start date and if conditions are not met, every 45-50 days after each failed attempt to fire...

I have updated the fourth post here with what I think is the latest word on this. So, the offset is still used for the first check.

Third Angel · Jan 17, 2012

About the events in post #6.

First of all, what I believe is a typo, both actions in GTA_388000 have -50 in infra. Then, I would like to know the reason for the dates of this event, as the encampment was installed much sooner.

I think GTA was also approached but refused to join, which in the end caused the failure of the attack. Maybe we could have a GTA event, the same as AMI_112007 and co but with inversed actions. GTA picking action B would then result in the success of this first league and make the 914-5 one useless.

Successful attacks, be it in 903 or 915 could maybe give a +1 in BTV for provinces that suffered mostly from the raids, maybe a trade boost, any other idea is welcome.

Lastly, I believe that the Capuan call for Byzantine help is too early, especially when the help actually came ten years later. I will see what I can find about it tonight.

Bordic · Jan 17, 2012

Third Angel said:
About the events in post #6.

First of all, what I believe is a typo, both actions in GTA_388000 have -50 in infra. Then, I would like to know the reason for the dates of this event, as the encampment was installed much sooner.

It's not a typo, I have forgotten to remove the command line from one action at least. The issue was if invoking the Saracens will bring part of the loot (that is why treasury is there) or less infra (their presence isn't good to GTA too) or both of them. In action B, where the Saracens aren't invoked, they will bring a reduced GTA influence on South Italy matters (-2 dip) and then instability or loss of infra. I need to balance both actions. Probably I'll go for removing it from action B.

About the encampment, I know that it was installed in 882, iirc. I wanted to create the sequence starting from GTA, instead of CPA. That is if GTA isn't supporting the Saracens, the sequence of the coalition won't fire and the Saracens of Gariglianto will be ahistorically defeated in 903 without any notice for a player. That's why CPA ask for a league in case GTA still supports the Saracens.

I think GTA was also approached but refused to join, which in the end caused the failure of the attack. Maybe we could have a GTA event, the same as AMI_112007 and co but with inversed actions. GTA picking action B would then result in the success of this first league and make the 914-5 one useless.

I thought that CPA only appoached NAP and AMI and not GTA because of her unreliability. In case of CPA starting the sequence, you are right, GTA will have the same event for NAP and AMI with reversed actions. Action B will sleep the following sequence(s): Capua inviting Bysantium and the Christian League.

Successful attacks, be it in 903 or 915 could maybe give a +1 in BTV for provinces that suffered mostly from the raids, maybe a trade boost, any other idea is welcome.

The BTV increase would mean that those provinces start with less BTV, wouldn't they?

In case, random events about Saracen attacks, about which we already talked in the general DOK thread, could be implemented now. Is your announced update of geography.txt ready?

Lastly, I believe that the Capuan call for Byzantine help is too early, especially when the help actually came ten years later. I will see what I can find about it tonight.

I have read that Capua called for Byzantium before 910 and it isn't related to the 914 league.

However if you talk about the dates I gave to the events, they aren't actually corresponding to historical facts. They are just for game play:
GTA event from late 902 to early 903, Capua event from early 903 to late 908 and Capua with Byzantium from early 904 to late 910.

They are intentionally to be fired earlier than the historical dates (respectively 903, 908 and 910) as they could represent the time necessary to make the arrangements... ;-)

In my sources (I am still waiting for Kreutz's book to come by courier...) I have three episodes:

903 - Capua isn't successful with the Saracens and then, in
908, the county forms an alliance with Naples and Amalfi, the alliance isn't that powerful, so Atenolfo of Capua asks for Emperor Leo VI's help in exchange of a assumed allegiance of Capua to the HRE. And that should be before 910, the year in which Atenolfo dies.

Then in 915, the other coalition will take place with the famous battle.

In a previous post you wrote:

Like I said above, it looks like John X had nothing to do with the planning. CPA, who had been trying several other attacks in the years following the 903 failure and who had been deserted by NAP and AMI, was looking for a new ally and embassies were exchanged with BYZ.

I think you are referring to the 908 league and not to the 915 league when you talk about NAP and AMI and then BYZ.

The Byzantine strategos coming to negotiate the AMI-NAP-GTA rallying to the league arrived in Italy very soon after John X had come to power, much too soon to believe that the new Pope had anything to do with it.

Also, Alberico was there indeed, leading Roman and Papal troops, but it sounds like Berengario's troops are a myth too. SLO was there too even though they did not suffer much from the raids, but they felt it would look bad diplomatically if they stayed out. About GTA, they do not seem to have participated actively, just not opposed the operation this time...

Afaik, it should be the 915 league by which AMI-NAP and GTA joined that league because of BYZ influence and that because GTA was probably promised the ducal title, which they took soon after. As you said, GTA could have remained neutral.

About Barengario, several sources (of mine...) report that, after the successful campaign against the Garigliano Saracens, he took the imperial title. So he should have joined that league in a way or another, even by letting his vassal, the Margrave of Spoleto, participate and lead troops. Maybe the troops were not proper Italians (in KoI sense of course) but Spoletans.

Bordic · Jan 17, 2012

Third Angel said:
Yes, but I have excuses, the whole co-ruling process between 900 and 981-2 is a mess. Originally I had BEN inheriting CPA in 900 and all the events were for BEN, and CPA did not even have monarchs after 900, because before I had read much about it, I figured that Benevento having a more glorious history would have been favoured as a seat of power by the counts of Capua.

Later on, I came upon the systematic co-ruling system so I changed my mind and decided to have CPA as the leader and to keep BEN under vassalization. When I wanted to have two monarchs lists, it turned out to be much less easy than I thought, at some points I even thought of reverting to what I had before. I finally came up with something I was quite satisfied of, and I believe here was the reason why Atenolfo rules in Capua and Landolfo in Benevento.

I am still very much open to suggestions to determine if the BEN-CPA relations between 900 and 981-2 would be better represented as an annexation or a vassalization, and regarding who should be the leader of this relation.

As fon now I haven't a good internet connection to read that google book.

About CPA-BEN relations, I think the sources talk about Count of Capua being the liege of the Principality of Benevento. Yes, that seems to be other way round.

Isn't the co-ruling system being implemented in ftg 1.3 patch?

Bordic · Jan 19, 2012

Third Angel said:
and I believe here was the reason why Atenolfo rules in Capua and Landolfo in Benevento.

I have managed to read that passage in the book you linked. As you can see Atenolfo I dies in 910, so, at least, the death date of this monarch (both CPA and BEN) should be changed from 912 to 910.

Bordic · Jan 20, 2012

So, according to previous discussions I post some modifications in order to "disconnect Wido's intervention in Italy from his rejection by the French magnates" and have the Kingdom of Italy as a vassal to the King of East Franks before the dispute between Berengario and Guido.

Code:

event = {
	id = 198000
	trigger = {
		NOT = { war = { country = NST country = FRA } }
	}
	country = FRA

	name = "The Kingdom of the West Franks"
	desc = "."

	date = { day = 29 month = february year = 888 }

	action = {
		name = "Elect Eudes, marquis de Neustrie"
		command = { type = relation which = NST value = 50 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 384000 } #NST: The Kingdom of the West Franks
		[COLOR=Red]command = { type = trigger which = 228003 } #ITA: Guido's aim at the Italian crown[/COLOR]
	}
	action = {
		name = "Elect Charles, son of Louis le Bègue, instead"
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049501 } #Eudes de Neustrie
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049522 } #Charles III
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049520 } #Foulques de Reims, regent
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049502 } #Charles III (early)
		command = { type = stability value = -3 }
		command = { type = relation which = NST value = -100 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 384005 } #NST: The Kingdom of the West Franks
		[COLOR=Red]command = { type = trigger which = 228003 } #ITA: Guido's aim at the Italian crown[/COLOR]
	}
	action = {
		name = "Give the crown to Guy, duc de Spolète"
		command = { type = vassal which = SPL }
		command = { type = relation which = SPL value = 400 }
		command = { type = relation which = NST value = -200 }
		command = { type = add_countryculture which = lombard }
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049525 } #Guy Ier de Spolète
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049546 } #Lambert Ier
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049547 } #Guy II *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049548 } #Guy III *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049549 } #Lambert II *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049550 } #Guy IV *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049551 } #Albéric Ier *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049552 } #Lambert III *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049553 } #Albéric II *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049554 } #Guy V *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049555 } #Albéric III *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049556 } #Guy VI *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049557 } #Guy VII *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049558 } #Lambert IV *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049559 } #Adalbert Ier *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049560 } #Lambert V *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049561 } #Guy VIII *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049562 } #Adalbert II *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049563 } #Guy IX *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049564 } #Lambert VI *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049565 } #Guy X *
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 049566 } #Guy XI *
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049501 } #Eudes de Neustrie
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049505 } #Louis IV
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049506 } #Lothaire
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049507 } #Louis V
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049508 } #Hugues
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049509 } #Robert II
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049510 } #Henri Ier
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049511 } #Philippe Ier
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049512 } #Louis VI
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049513 } #Louis VII
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049514 } #Philippe II
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049515 } #Louis VIII
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049516 } #Louis IX
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049517 } #Philippe III
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049518 } #Philippe IV
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049519 } #Edwige de Wessex (Louis IV)
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 049522 } #Charles III le Simple
		[COLOR=Yellow]command = { type = sleepevent which = 228003 } #ITA: Guido's aim at the Italian crown[/COLOR] 
		command = { type = trigger which = 384005 } #NST: The Kingdom of the West Franks
	}
}

desc:

After Charles the Fat's death. The Empire was split in kingdoms and kings were elected by great nobles. In late February 888, Eudes, marquis de Neustrie and Comte de Paris, managed to get himself elected King of West Franks by an assembly of nobles. Those were mostly his close vassals and allies. The other powerful Marquis, in Aquitaine, Auvergne, Bourgogne, Flandres were not there and only the Archbishop of Reims, Foulques, attempted to oppose the victor of the Normans only two years before, by defending the candidacy of the only Carolingian left in Francia, Charles, son of King Louis le Bègue (877-879). Guy, duc de Spolète, also of Carolingian descendency, hoped for the title which actually got a couple of weeks after at Langres

in following event I think to change action name A too, instead of "his" I'd suggest to use "Berengario"... it is more clear!

Code:

event = {
	id = 205031
	trigger = {
		ITA = { monarch = 064500 } #Berengario I
	}
	country = GER

	name = "Anarchy in the Kingdom of Italy"
	desc = "."

	date = { day = 0 month = january year = 888 }
	offset = 360
	[COLOR=Red]deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 889 }[/COLOR] 
	[COLOR=Yellow]deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 888 }[/COLOR]

	action = {
		name = "[COLOR=Red]Require his[/COLOR] [COLOR=Yellow]Request Berengario's[/COLOR] submission"
		command = { type = trigger which = 228025 } #ITA: Arnulf, King of the Eastern Franks
	}
	action = {
		name = "We are not interested in Italian affairs"
		command = { type = DIP which = -2 value = 24 }
		command = { type = relation which = ITA value = 50 }
	}
}

desc:

After Charles the Fat's death, the Empire was split in kingdoms and kings were elected by great nobles. In Northern Italy the local nobles elected Berengario, Margrave of Friuli and Louis the Pious' grandson, as King of Italy. But still Berengario didn't acknowledge the newly elected Emperor and king of the East Franks, Arnulf of Carinthia, as his liege. Arnulf moved an army towards Trento, ready to siege Verona.

in following event we now have another issue, what if Italy isn't vassal to Germany? A solution would be to remove the part about Arnulf's legitimation or modify the lines like this...

Code:

event = {
	id = 228003 [COLOR=Red]#triggered by FRA_198000 A / B (888)[/COLOR]
	trigger = {
		monarch = 064500 #Berengario I
		[COLOR=Yellow]event = 205032 #GER: Berengar's submission
		OR = {
			event = 384000 #NST: The Kingdom of the West Franks 
			event = 384005 #NST: The Kingdom of the West Franks
		}[/COLOR]  
	} 
	country = ITA

	[COLOR=Yellow]date = { day = 0 month = january year = 888 }
	offset = 30 
	deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 888 }[/COLOR]

	name = "Guido's aim at the Italian crown"
	desc = "."

	action = {
		name = "We keep Berengario del Friuli as king"
		command = { type = setflag which = [Feudal_Anarchy] }
		command = { type = stability value = -3 }
		command = { type = revolt which = 662 } #Spoletan party in Ivrea
		command = { type = revolt which = 665 } #Spoletan party in Pavia
		command = { type = revolt which = 665 }
		command = { type = revolt which = 667 } #Spoletan party in Milan
		command = { type = revolt which = 667 }
		command = { type = revolt which = 668 } #Spoletan party in Placentia
		command = { type = revolt which = 668 }
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 662 value = 30 } #Secusia
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 666 value = 30 } #Novara
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 665 value = 30 } #Aquae
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 667 value = 30 } #Milan
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 668 value = 30 } #Placentia
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 60 value = 20 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 382000 } #SPL: The Kingdom of the Lombards
	}
	action = {
		name = "Guido di Spoleto"
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 064501 } #Guido
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 064502 } #Lamberto
		command = { type = independence which = FRL }
		command = { type = independence which = IRA }
		command = { type = vassal which = SPL }
		command = { type = trigger which = 228024 } #ITA: Strenghtening the throne
		command = { type = trigger which = 382003 } #SPL: Guido IV
	}
}

desc:

After Charles the Fat's death. The Empire was split in kingdoms and kings were elected by great nobles. Seeing his candidacy for the King of West Franks rejected by the Magnates, Guido di Spoleto turned his ambitions to the crown of the Kingdom of Italy currently held by Berengario del Friuli who was legitimated by Arnulf King of the Eastern Franks. in spite of Arnulf's imperial claims in Italy as King of the Eastern Franks.

As I said, SPL should start in 888 as vassal of ITA, together with TOS.

The command in 228003 action B can stay, in case it will be ignored.

Third Angel · Jan 21, 2012

Bordic said:
It's not a typo, I have forgotten to remove the command line from one action at least. The issue was if invoking the Saracens will bring part of the loot (that is why treasury is there) or less infra (their presence isn't good to GTA too) or both of them. In action B, where the Saracens aren't invoked, they will bring a reduced GTA influence on South Italy matters (-2 dip) and then instability or loss of infra. I need to balance both actions. Probably I'll go for removing it from action B.

Ok.

The BTV increase would mean that those provinces start with less BTV, wouldn't they?

Sure, we just need to determine which provinces, Capua obviously, Latium, maybe Naples?

For once, I thought I would amend your events

Code:

event = {
    id = 386007[COLOR=#ff0000]
    trigger = {
        event = 388000 #GTA: The Saracen Incursions
        OR = {
            exists = NAP
            exists = AMI
        }
        NOT = { 
            war = { country = CPA country = AMI }
            war = { country = CPA country = NAP }
        }  
    }[/COLOR]
    country = CPA

    name = "The Saracens of Garigliano River"
    desc = "."

    date = [COLOR=#ffff00]{ day = 0 month = january year = 903 }[/COLOR][COLOR=#ff0000]{ day = 5 month = february year = 903 }[/COLOR]
    offset = [COLOR=#ffff00]360[/COLOR][COLOR=#ff0000]10[/COLOR]
    deathdate = [COLOR=#ffff00]{ day = 29 month = december year = 903 }[/COLOR][COLOR=#ff0000]{ day = 30 month = december year = 908 }[/COLOR]

    action_a = {
        name = "Ask for a league"[COLOR=#ffff00]
        trigger = {
            exists = GTA
            OR = {
                exists = AMI
                exists = NAP
            }
        }[/COLOR]
        command = { type = DIP which = 2 value = 24 }
        command = { type = treasury value = -25 }
        command = { type = relation which = GTA value = -25 }
        command = { type = trigger which = 112007 }  #AMI: A league with Capua
        command = { type = trigger which = 291001 }  #NAP: A league with Capua
        command = { 
            trigger = {
                OR = {
                    event = 386001 #CPA: Atenolf I, prince of Benevento
                    vassal = { country = CPA country = BEN }
                }
            }
            type = trigger which = 142004 #BEN: A league with Capua
        }      
    }[COLOR=#FFFF00]
    action_b = {
        name = "We'll deal with them later"[/COLOR][COLOR=#ffff00]
        trigger = {
            exists = GTA
        }[/COLOR][COLOR=#ffff00]
         command = { type = sleepevent which = 388000 } #GTA: The Saracen Incursions
    }[/COLOR]
    action_[COLOR=#ffff00]c[/COLOR][COLOR=#ff0000]b[/COLOR] = {
        name = "Act on your own"[COLOR=#ffff00]
        trigger = {
            exists = GTA
            NOT = {
                exists = AMI
                exists = NAP
            }
        }[/COLOR]
        command = { type = stability value = -1 }
        command = { type = infra value = -50 }
        command = { type = revoltrisk which = 24 value = 5 }
    }[COLOR=#ffff00]
    action_d = {
        name = "Deal with them swiflty"
        trigger = {
            NOT = { exists = GTA }
        }
        command = { type = trigger which = XXX } #(province ?) events to add BTV[/COLOR][COLOR=#ffff00]
        command = { type = sleepevent which = 386008 } #CPA: The call to Byzantium[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ffff00]     }[/COLOR]
}

Code:

 event = {
     id = 388000
     trigger = {[COLOR=#ff0000]
         exists = CPA
         NOT = { 
             vassal = { country = GTA country = CPA }
         }    [/COLOR]
         [COLOR=#ffff00]event = 386007 #CPA: The Saracens of Garigliano River[/COLOR]
     }
     country = GTA
 
     name = "The Saracen Incursions"
     desc = "."
 
     date = [COLOR=#ffff00]{ day = 0 month = january year = 903 }[/COLOR][COLOR=#ff0000]{ day = 4 month = september year = 902 }[/COLOR]
     offset = 10
     deathdate = [COLOR=#ffff00]{ day = 29 month = december year = 903 }[/COLOR][COLOR=#ff0000]{ day = 4 month = february year = 903 }[/COLOR]
 
     action_a = {
         name = "We welcomed them, we use them!"
         command = { type = treasury value = 50 }
         command = { type = infra value = -50 }
         command = { type = relation which = CPA value = -25 }
     }
     action_b = {
         name = "We don't need them any longer"
         command = { type = stability value = -1 }
         command = { type = infra value = -50 }
         command = { type = DIP which = -2 value = 24 }
         command = { type = relation which = CPA value = 25 }[COLOR=#ffff00]
         command = { type = trigger which = XXX } #(province ?) events to add BTV[/COLOR][COLOR=#ffff00]
         command = { type = sleepevent which = 386008 } #CPA: The call to Byzantium[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000]         command = { type = sleepevent which = 386007 } #CPA: The Saracens of Garigliano River[/COLOR]    
     }
 }

I will try to make a detailed account tomorrow of how I see things for the 910-915 matters, crossing facts from three serious books.

[DoK] Italy

Mad Medievalist

Mad Medievalist

Magister Militum

Magister Militum

Magister Militum

Magister Militum

Magister Militum

Mad Medievalist

Magister Militum

Mad Medievalist

Mad Medievalist

Mad Medievalist

Magister Militum

Mad Medievalist

Mad Medievalist

Magister Militum

Magister Militum

Magister Militum

Magister Militum

Mad Medievalist