• 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.
A standing army in the colonies would probably be necessary, good thing you've achieved relative dominance over western Europe. How does exploration differ in MM from DW? I finally got my old preordered copy of EU3e that I couldn't play due to crap computers and reinstalled it. I figure why not try and see what this MM is all about.

This prompts my BEGINNERS CORNER: Exploration in Magna Mundi

If you notice, the areas of colonization in the Americas (Spain having Mexico/Caribbean/Peru, Portugal having Brazil, England having America) are highly historical in my game. This is a general trend--the only problem I've seen in MM is Britain overcolonizing due to them beating Scotland really early. But it isn't like, say, EU2 where these areas are destined to be carved out that way. Starting in the late 15th century, a bunch of exploration decisions pop up. These decisions are easier to take if you are closer to the area you would be exploring (Portugal has a huge leg up when it comes to the Spice Routes and Brazil because of their control of the Azores, for instance), but if you have a certain level of naval tech you can take the decision anyway. This makes Scotland, Sweden/Norway/Denmark, Brittany, and some sort of Dutch country possible alternative colonizers, but means that you won't get AI Milanese/Venetian colonization.

The exploration events uncover only sea provs (which is kind of meh, a lot of the exploration of the Saint Lawrence and the Hudson occurred without the 1000-2000 man conquistador squadrons that players typically use but it'd be hard to simulate river exploration), and when the event chain ends you get a 'long distance expedition', a tradition 0 conquistador, and a modifier that gives you +.25 colonists a year (also tradition and Catholicism no longer give colonists, which limits colonization a lot). This is where colonization becomes different.

Indian/Tribal relations are a lot more important in MM. This is because tribal relations 'stick'--if you kill all of the Indians in a province, when it's settled you'll get a negative modifier like 'unfriendly large tribes', which increases stability cost and decreases trade goods. On the other hand, there is a 'seek a treaty with the Indians' provincial decision which, if you have a high DIP king, can greatly lower Indian aggression and ferocity. I generally go with peaceful relations with the tribes, unless I'm playing Spain or Egypt or something.

The biggest effect that colonization can give you is the Colonization Policy that you pick once you get 3 colonial provinces. These policies are Trade Supremacy (think New England), Military Possession (think New France), Peaceful Integration (think no one really, although you could say New France), Merciless Subjugation (think the Caribbean/the Spaniards), and Extractive Prerogative (think Brazil). All of these give different bonuses and maluses, with trade giving a TE bonus with a naval forcelimit/manpower malus, military giving the opposite, Subjugation giving large tax/production bonuses but large RR/trade maluses, Extractive Prerogative giving smaller tax bonuses and a trade bonus but gives RR maluses, and Peaceful integration greatly increases population growth in the colonies and greatly lowers stability costs/RR, but makes the colonies nigh worthless economically.
 
Good to see France joining the colonial game.
 
LordsofFrance1-4.png


French Exploration and Colonization, from 1500 to 1550

Part Two: Colonization

Exploration part 2


Simon de Saint Omer's promotion led to a new form of French colonization. While France maintained small trading posts and military bases in Canada and Greenland before 1524, these bases rarely housed more than 50 people in them at a time. The new French colonization led to a totally different form of settlement, a totally different economic system in the colonies, and a totally different relationship between the French colonists and the Indians*. The first French colony, Louisville, was set up in 1525.

EU3_88-4.jpg

The first French colony, Louisville. 'New World Claimed' is a malus given to Catholics in the early game if the Spaniards and Portuguese manage to get a Pope-sponsored monopoly over the New world

Louisville was originally seen as the gateway for France to the New World: a half-way home for the ships en route to Canada. But within 10 years of its establishment, Louisville was already obsolete. Louisville was obsolete for two reasons:
-Her unforgiving climate made her uniquely poor as a half-way home. She was not a warm-water port, which led to the loss of several ships trying to return from Canada. Furthermore it would take centuries before the French would have developed the building techniques to deal with the acute cold of the Arctic.
-The long-range fishing ships which Louisville had been home to through the 1510s and 1500s were able to make a cross-Atlantic trip on their own.

The Herring Buss, a Flemish invention, was a long-coming technological advance past the age-old Viking Longship. It came out of financial necessity--namely a need to exploit their predominance over the Northern Atlantic. Busses would depart from Finistere and be out in sea for months at a time, only returning in the Fall, filled to the brim with fish--a trip thought impossible until 1520. Simon de Saint Omer already saw a great deal of potential in the ships: if the French could transverse the whole Atlantic in one go, then the colonization of the Americas could begin in earnest. But it wasn't until 1526 that such a voyage was tried, but in 1528 a buss containing 100 settlers landed on the island of Unamalik, the soon-to-be settlement of Villenueve.

EU3_101-3.jpg

The fortress of Villenueve

Now I will split up the discussion of early French colonization into 3 different topics--trade, French-native relations, and religion.

Trade in the French Colonies

As I said, fishing was the main trade good of the French colonies during early exploration, and this remained the case until nearly 1600. The massive fishing areas of the Northern Atlantic allowed for a massive haul, to the degree that the design of the Flemish buss was held as a state secret for 2 decades before the English found a beached one in northern Scotland. Fishing was a fantastic market--it required little to no contact with the Indians, it was a food resource, and it was easily smoked and salted and sold across Europe. French smoked salmon became a Europe-wide delicacy through the early 16th century, and these funds were plowed back into the French commercial marine, which became one of the most innovative in the world, alongside the English and Portuguese.

But with the French settling of the Canadian coast came new trading goods, goods which relied on positive Franco-Indian relations. These goods were primarily 'military' goods, used to increase France's military capacity, but they soon became important in a colonial context. The dense forests of Sangueway became one of the largest sources of wood for French capital ships starting in 1560, but combined with Indian knowledge the elk wood led to a mass production of canoes and kayaks, which were by far the best way to travel across Canada until the 19th century. The copper mines of Kespek gave both copper which was sent east to be turned into cannon in France, but starting in 1540 was also used to arm the local Indian tribes.

Fur_traders_in_canada_1777.jpg

A depiction of urbanized fur traders, dated 1777. It was only in the 18th century that fur trading would become an urban venture, until then it was primarily the work of French frontiersmen who rarely saw 'civilization

But it was furs that became the primary good of Canada. Furs were to Canada what cotton was to the American South; just as cotton, a highly breathable cloth, became key to English survival in the hot climate of the South, furs, which provided much needed warmth, were key to French survival in the North. Eventually furs would become not only the main clothing of the French military in Canada, but would become a fashionable clothing item in and of itself.

French-Indian Relations

The transition to copper, furs, and logging as resources required a huge about-face from France's earlier Indian Policy. De Saint Omer saw the Indians as a potential threat, a de Villenuevan 'variable' which had to be controlled. This was possible in the settlements of Louisville and Villenueve, where the tribes were relatively small and unconnected to larger Indian nations. But the native American tribes remained the largest military force in the Americas until the 18th century, and once France moved out of the islands on the coast and started dealing with the tribes on the mainland, it became clear that she would have to take a more diplomatic approach. This led to the rise of one of France's greatest ambassadors, alongside d'Ursine in greatness. Firmin d'Estrees was one of the first generation born in French Canada, and he knew the language of the Huron and Mikmack tribes. His first negotiation occurred at the age of 16, when he was sent on his own from Villenueve to the tribes of Kespeck armed only with a brace of pistols and carrying a bag of shells and steel knives. The plan was to have him negotiate for mining rights for the French with these items alone.

When he met the tribal leader, he was taken aback. The Indians, who had a far better diet than the colonial Frenchmen, were on average a foot taller than the Canadiens, but the chief Hassun was by all records taller than 6'7". Moreover it seems that he had learned how to read from earlier French expeditions. D'Estrees came expecting that Hassun would ask for more materials (perhaps rifles), but was surprised when he communicated the French want to mine in the hills of Kespek. Hassun responded that he wanted two things: a treaty with the French saying that they wouldn't move troops onto the mainland, and to be converted to Catholicism. At the request of Hassun, d'Estrees baptized the whole Mikmak tribe (This is a historical event! Although it was a Huron tribe which asked to be converted, and Cartier who was like 'oh yeah'...and didn't. Because Cartier was a dick.), and agreed that the French would ship Bibles to the tribe within the year's end. This was the beginning of generally positive French-Indian relations

champlain-indians.jpg

A drawing of the Indians teaching French scouts how to use canoes to go across Lake Flanders

Religion in Canada, 1500-1550

Religion in early French Canada is a spotty subject. Unlike, say, the Spaniards, who explicitly colonized South America as a missionary act, the French saw Canada as a military holding, and it wasn't until very late that Canada had its own missionaries. This is odd considering that France was the center of Catholicism through the 16th century, producing most of the religion's monks as well as the Society of Jesu in the 1580s. But in some ways a lack of religiosity helped the Canadian colony greatly in the early 16th century. The French frontiersman, as a 'type' was a man who lived off the Indian tribes, who rarely saw the metropole. An ability to communicate with the Indians on their terms was the mainstay of the frontiersman's way of life, and indeed the key social trend in French Canada in until the 17th century was an integration with the Indians rather than the other way around.

This aroused horror in the French. Henri II considered a policy of separation of the French from the Indians, only convinced by the junior diplomat d'Estrees not to do so at the last minute (Note: segregation between the French and Indians happened historically, which really weakened the urbanization of Canada). D'Estrees knew from experience that the Indians were open to conversion to French culture and religion, but that doing so required a great deal more tact than say, the Spaniard missionaries.

Instead, French missionary efforts came out of the old French monastic strategy of attaining faith through education and criticism. D'Estrees's first act in the French court was to try to convince Robert de Bosquet to allow monastic orders into the colonies. The Monastic orders, seen as an internationalistic and possibly destabilizing force, weren't allowed into Canada in the early 16th century. The first group of monks, a Franciscan order under Henri de Rouchlet, came to Villenueve in 1550. With this step, Canada had started along the path from frontier to colony.

EU3_118-1.jpg

Canada and the French Court in 1548, soon before the death of Henri II

*Although I don't like the term 'Indian', it was the term that contemporaries used so I guess I'll stick with it.
 
Last edited:
Good to see France joining the colonial game.

I try. The Military Possession modifier is really helping me out.

Great update as always. However I bewlieve that if France expands into North America a new conflict with England is inevitable and their superior navy will make sending additional troops difficult. A permanent colonial army may be worth considering.


Yes, I'll likely need to station ~15,000 troops there once New France and New England border each other. The one thing that really gets me about MM is that colonial warfare is still ridiculous--the English will station half their damn army in the Americas which would've been impossible in the time period. If I end up seeing tons of English soldiers in the continent I'll just delete them or send them home. Alternatively I'll station 30,000 troops in Canada but we'll see how it goes.

I'm really happy that some of my favorite writAARs are reading my AAR.

Two notes:
1.Something I left out about Magna Mundi's colonization is that trade resources randomly appear by province. This is great because it takes out the element of knowing that X Y and Z provinces are the only ones with valuable trading resources.
2.I'll likely post about de Villenueve's last act as marshal tomorrow (maybe, it's a relatively short post to make), and I won't be in this weekend (going to Colorado to see my sister graduate from Americorps). After that, well, there's 3 damn weeks left this summer. I'll try to get as far as I can.
 
This AAR is very interesting, when I have time I will try to read it from the start. MM really helps a lot with the narrative.
 
This AAR is very interesting, when I have time I will try to read it from the start. MM really helps a lot with the narrative.

Thank you! And it does, quite a bit.
 
Great AAR. This might be one of my favorite so far, just because of your stance on historical plausibility/no game perfectionism and because you made a nation like France become so interesting.

I just think that you should also put height and other measures in the European measurement system (International System) as well.

Keep the good work
 
Great AAR. This might be one of my favorite so far, just because of your stance on historical plausibility/no game perfectionism and because you made a nation like France become so interesting.

I just think that you should also put height and other measures in the European measurement system (International System) as well.

Keep the good work

Merci! I'm trying to keep personalities as a check on the power of the French kings. Both Louis XI and Henri II have a huge lack of ambition, and while Louis XI's lack of ambition was balanced out by a philosophy which led towards centralization...well, we'll see about Henri. Without saying too much, Henri II's reign will have a lot of entries on Europe as a whole, looking at it before the Reformation tears it apart.
 
LordsofFrance1-4.png


De Villenueve's last act

As I said, de Villenueve is still celebrated as one of the greatest French Marshals of all time. Over his 62 year administration, he transformed the French army from a peasant levy manned by a few pseudo-professional knights (who would be better classified as 'warriors' rather than 'soldiers'--their aim was glory in personal combat, rather than victory through combined arms) into a professional, gunpowder wielding army surveyed by a professional officer corps. The last transition, from a hand to hand army to an army with a regularized use of gunpowder, turned France into one of the most powerful military forces in Europe, and the French-style tercié became the most common military formation in Europe by 1540.

frencharquebusier.gif

The Aristocrat Arquebusier of von Viben's artillier regiment

The Artillier regiments were an ad hoc response to the dominance of Burgundian Knights. It is often forgotten that before the creation of the artillier regiments it seemed very likely that the Burgundians were going to win the Burgundian wars. Such a victory would have led to very different conditions--Burgundy would have likely gained Kingdom status, and remained the greatest threat to European stability for centuries. But the Artillier regiments, which had to march far up the line to get into range, were decimated in the Battle of Normandie. This led to a great problem-though de Villenueve wanted artillier regiments in most French armees, it was clear that gunpowder doctrines weren't developed what so ever in 1500.

At the same time, France was only saved by a fluke, a technological/military miracle. As de Villenueve said in the beginning of the counseil meeting of 1506, "C'est le rôle du prêtre, pas le policier, à prier pour les miracles (It is the role of the priest, not the officer, to pray for miracles)". Thus, de Villenueve made efforts to incorporate the gunpowder element into the French army. This was problematic because the use of gunpowder very much changed de Villenueve's offensive/defensive dialectic, making the defensive even stronger than before. High-ground positions were now required to maximize the use of ranged weaponry on the battlefield, and considering de Villenueve's (correct) assumption that ranged weapons would only become more important after the first military utilization of gunpowder, this made high-ground positions even more important to maximize the force of one's ranged weaponry.

This put the French army in a dilemma--to maximize the use of defensive terrain required a fast army which went against the fast raider/slow main force concept. Furthermore it was clear that arquebusiers needed some sort of protection because the contemporary arquebus was a short ranged weapon: they could not be like the archers of old, left to the back lines.

This problem was fixed to some degree when von Viben suggested that artillier regiments be combined with pike regiments to form terciés (an old term for 'fellow' which also translated to 'regiment'). But de Villenueve went further than this. He knew that simply integrating gunpowder regiments into pike regiments weren't enough--though tercié regiments were a way of solving the problem of protecting ranged regiments, de Villenueve saw it as a temporary solution because ranged and pike doctrines were far too different to be adequately synthesized. In order to find a means to permanently fix the problems posed by gunpowder, de Villenueve added a Gunnery/Seigecraft school to the French Officer Academy, alongside Infantry and Cavalry tactics, and put von Viben in charge of the gunnery school, where he would remain for the rest of his life.

EU3_48-7.jpg

The French integration of arquebusiers into their pike regiments made the French army the strongest one in Europe for decades

De Villenueve died in 1514, a year before the death of the third king he had served under, Louis XI. His long career had seen the transition in France from a Medieval kingdom to a semimodern state. After his first heart attack in the winter of 1513, he retired and moved back to his estate on the French riviera, an estate which he hadn't seen in over 60 years. On the 15th of March, 1515, a courier ran up the steps to the top of the hill that de Villenueve's estate rested on, and met the near-dead Armand with the news of the discovery of Unamalik, and that the small base created on the island was called Villenueve. Armand de Villenueve, the greatest military mind of a generation, cracked a pleased smile. That smile never closed. He was pronounced dead and given a magnificent state funeral, which every French officer, as well as the Marshals of Spain, Modena, Portugal, and the Holy Roman Empire, in attendance.

And because none of you got my hint:

Next time on Lords of France: The Hainautian Succession and Hapsburg France!
See you next week
 
Last edited:
Oh!!! It was a spoiler for us to guess!!!! I thought it was just a small "spoiler leak"!!!
But is France going to release Flanders some day?

NEVERS!
(maybe​)
 
Interesting focus on the colonization of Canada...(Cartier as a dick:)) Now to build a white elephant at Louisbourg and lose it all.

I'm thinking that I may end up losing Canada to a sort of Canadian Revolution (or in a similar way to the way that France lost Haiti the first time, with the Canadiens revolting from the overly Revolutionary France).

Hapsburg france!!!! Blasphemy!!!

Hapsburg France will be but a fleeting moment on the path to Bourbon glory, but I do think that 2 generations of a highly positive Franco-Hapsburg relationship will change Europe forever.

I'm home from Colorado! Hopefully by the end of today I'll have a post about the Hainautian Succession and possibly the last Hurrah of the Burgundian Valois.
 
Good god.... Hapsburg France.... I feel utterly nauseated :X
 
agree, its just not right. Great AAR by the way, just such a shocking statement forced me to stop lurking in the shadows ...

Mua ha ha ha

But thank you, very very much, for reading this AAR! Your AGEOD AARs are some of my favorites for the whole forum!

Good god.... Hapsburg France.... I feel utterly nauseated :X

I understand your position. But relax, have some complimentary patte, and I'll try to explain how this horrible thing happened!

LordsofFrance-2.png


The Hainautian Succession and the Fall of the House of Valois


The first question which is often asked about the Hapsburg Successions is: why did Louis d'Avignon Valois betray his own family? Why did he give Henri d'Hainaut Hapsburg, a relatively minor nobleman, stewardship over his Kingdom, thus breaking over 500 years of Capet-Valois rule over France?

Both of these questions were asked, with gusto, by the irked Valois and other major French noble families, through the 1510s and 20s. Louis XI was seen as a traitor and, especially after the 1550s, was cast in a horrid historical light until recent scholarship redeemed him. The truth is that Louis d'Avignon was very much a product of his upbringing and his time. Although his actions deconstructed the Medievalist style of rule (where it was present in both France and Burgundy), Louis was very much a product of Medievalism, or at least of the two great Medieval status quo powers: namely the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic Church.

Louis had, through his administration, brokered a deep-reaching relationship between Valois France and the Hapsburg Empire. Everything from the presence of high-ranking Imperial advisers in Louis' inner circle to increased trade along the Rhine came out of this relationship. In a broader cultural/social context, it led to Louis' particular form of modernism (what was later called by art historians "Renaissance Modernism" or "Neo-Classicalism", involving a combination of German, French, and Italian philosophical and aesthetic movements, a centralist conceptions of Law and Justice, and a concept of Knowledge which was still influenced by the dominance of Theology) becoming the concept of modernity for nearly a century. In politics, Louis cooperated with the Empire and it's rather clear that he 'bought in' to the idea presented by the Emperor and Pope, of the Emperor and Pope forming the Executive and Judiciary of Europe, with the Pope presenting the Law as created by God and the Emperor enforcing that Law.

Durer_Apollo.jpg

Albrecht Durer was one of the greatest "Neo-Classical" artists, incorporating Italian and French ideas of Aesthetics into what was still visibly German art

That was the positive element to Louis' decision--his love of the Universalist Societas that the Empire stood for. The Empire had been the pall bearer of transnationalism ever since the end of the 1st Millennium, limited only by the emergence of France as Europe's first nation. The early 16th century can be seen as a short descent of France back into the Empire, and represents one of the last moments where one could seriously speak of a Commonwealth of Europe.

The negative element was Louis' dislike of what he saw as the provincial elements of French culture. These 'provincial elements' were overwhelmingly present in the remnants of the Valois family, namely, a love of unjust Absolutism (distinguished from Just Absolutism, IE the Absolutism of Louis himself), arrogance, and a proclivity towards intellectualism which all too often led to heresy and faithlessness. It's fair to say that Louis was a total black sheep within his own family, but his ostracization from the Valois family was completed through the 1510s.

It can be said that the main overarching weakness that appeared in the very different personalities of both Louis XI, and Francois I was a weakness of virility. These came out of different elements--general misanthropy from Francois, and the remnants of Louis XI's oath of celibacy. But unlike Francois, Louis XI did end up having a child: Marie Valois, who quickly became Europe's most wanted bachelorette.

This is because Louis XI, in a situation which many a French ruler found himself in this period, simply didn't want any of his relatives to inherit his throne. So he spent the majority of his last 10 years finding some sort of way to have a foreigner inherit the French crown.

220px-Henry_II_of_France..jpg

Henry I (later Henri II) head of the Flemish Hapsburgs and King of France

This foreigner came about as a result of the Burgundian Wars. The County of Hainaut, which was freed from Burgundian bonds in the War of Grongingen as a way of splitting Dutch Burgundy in half, was ruled over by a minor cadet branch of the Hapsburg family. The Flemish Hapsburgs were led in Hainaut by Henry I. Henry, an intellectual but faithful man, had one major thing going for him--he was overwhelmingly unambitious. Driven mainly by loyalty to his Catholic faith (although he shared with Louis a reformist zeal which ended up leading to a large amount of heresy within France) and his family, his disposition was very similar to Louis', and over the years the two became fast friends. Furthermore, Henry became deeply infatuated with Marie, who took a liking to him.

This left Louis in a difficult situation--Henry couldn't inherit the French crown in two different ways. Firstly, he was only separated from Marie by 6 degrees (which meant that a marriage between the two would technically be incest), and secondly French inheritance law wouldn't allow it. But IF Henry inherited, France wouldn't only become a full fledged part of the Hapsburg empire, it would gain the immensely rich province of Hainaut. Louis spent most of his autumn years arranging what would become the Hapsburg inheritance, and when he died Henri II successfully ascended to the throne.

EU3_19-15.jpg

Louis used his papal influence to both change French salic law and allow Henry to marry Marie

This wasn't an easy ascension, though. The French nobility abhorred Henri, who was seen as a pretender three times over--he married into the Royal family via an act of incest, he inherited the French crown via laws changed by the traitor Louis XI, and lastly, he represented the foreign world, the Empire, and his lording over France soon remained controversial through his whole life, especially after he inherited the de Poitou realm in Provence.

While my next post will deal with the tumultuous 2 years between the death of Louis XI and the acceptance of Henri II by the nobility, a period marked by one of France's bloodiest pre-modern civil wars, I feel that now is a good time to show the Hapsburg Empire as it was at its peak in 1520:

EU3_79-6.jpg

The Hapsburg Empire in 1520. Note the collapse of the Burgundian Duchy, as well as newly Hapsburg Portugal and France
 
All...Those...Hapsburgs... "Assuming Fetal position"

EDIT: is that a massive Austria going from the Adriatic to the Black sea? A war with that will be quite a show.
 
Last edited: