Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Well folks, its up!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
And Yet Poles accepted a German King ? August II, and they also accepted fighting Swedes sideby side with their

Please, you know as well as I do that a portion of the nobility chose August II out of a VERY, VERY poor bunch of candidates. Jan Sobieski wanted to create a dynasty however that never materialized & Leczynski was deposed as King (the only person who could have done something good) only a few years after gaining the throne.

These nobles were bribed into choosing him.

Infact many Poles regarded the German on the Polish throne as an insult. By that time they were not in control of their destiny, the Russians / Swedes / Saxons all buying into the intrigues of the royal court, giving cash for 'favours' & influence.

In my opinion the German-Polish, Polish-German hostility (Of the 10-12th, 14-16th centuries) was only matched by the hostility the Poles had against the Russians, thinking of them as 'barbarian scum', as well as the Turks, of whom they percieved to be a threat to god and chose to 'defend' Europe against them as the Bulkwark of Christendom.

Language or religious faith had nothing to do with the Polish-German wars; it was merely an excuse. It was simply a competition, a fight for power & control;

A) emergence of Poland as an independant country in the 10th century; the Germans wanted them as vassals ..

B) complete dominance of the north-eastern Europe, that until the Polish/Teuton wars was split between Poland / The Order & Lithuania. in the late 14th, early 15th century.

After the Teutons were soundly beaten there was never again any open hostility towards the Germans until the emergence of Prussia / Brandenburg, the traitors that helped Sweden during the deluge, then when the tide had turned again came back to Poland's bossom on their knees, clenching their fists wanting independance for their support.

The WW I was the Birth of Modern Nationalism, not funny that such arguements comes into the Political Rhetorical Propaganda.

Yes, but it was not said by some 'politician' looking for cheap votes or applause, it was said by a soldier.

Sapura
 
Originally posted by Sapura on 05-12-2000 04:04 PM

'Please, you know as well as I do that a portion of the nobility chose August II out of a VERY, VERY poor bunch of candidates. Jan Sobieski wanted to create a dynasty however that never materialized & Leczynski was deposed as King (the only person who could have done something good) only a few years after gaining the throne.
These nobles were bribed into choosing him.'

Yes, but that only underscore my point that culture/language wasn't that important. Realpolitik and personal power were... :)

'Infact many Poles regarded the German on the Polish throne as an insult. By that time they were not in control of their destiny, the Russians / Swedes / Saxons all buying into the intrigues of the royal court, giving cash for 'favours' & influence.'

Not in control of their destiny ? Idon't think any country was. But, it is interesting to ask oneself; If the Polish Nobility would get the chance to reform their Political System and make it a centralized All-Polish Kingdom, would they have taken it ? I doubt it.

'In my opinion the German-Polish, Polish-German hostility (Of the 10-12th, 14-16th centuries) was only matched by the hostility the Poles had against the Russians, thinking of them as 'barbarian scum', as well as the Turks, of whom they percieved to be a threat to god and chose to 'defend' Europe against them as the Bulkwark of Christendom.'

Yes but are we talking about a 'Clash of Civilizations' or 'Competition between Dynasties' ? That makes a big difference.

'Language or religious faith had nothing to do with the Polish-German wars; it was merely an excuse. It was simply a competition, a fight for power & control;'

I fully concede :)

'A) emergence of Poland as an independant country in the 10th century; the Germans wanted them as vassals ..'

You mean the 'dynasty' of the Teutonic Order ? Not the German People ?

'B) complete dominance of the north-eastern Europe, that until the Polish/Teuton wars was split between Poland / The Order & Lithuania. in the late 14th, early 15th century.'

And Denmark...

'After the Teutons were soundly beaten there was never again any open hostility towards the Germans until the emergence of Prussia / Brandenburg, the traitors that helped Sweden during the deluge, then when the tide had turned again came back to Poland's bossom on their knees, clenching their fists wanting independance for their support.'

Yes, the Brandenburgers were real Jackals in that period.


'Yes, but it was not said by some 'politician' looking for cheap votes or applause, it was said by a soldier.'

Wrong ! Ludendorff and Hindenburg became virtually Dictators. First the arguement was used by them to underline their importance for the German Cause (i.e. Personal propaganda). Then they used it as Dictators in a Angel/Devil fashion to boost the moral of the German People. These two persons weren't just Generals. They were also Politicians....

/Greven
Click to expand...
 
Yes, but that only underscore my point that culture/language wasn't that important. Realpolitik and personal power were.


Individual personal power was very important in Poland. This is how other countries influenced the decisions of the sejm, especially in the 18th century. Culture and language was actually quite important, many of Poland's eastern 'states', (Lithuanian, Ruthenia, Ukraine) became heavily Polonized by taking on Polish culture and using the Polish language for higher state occasions.

Not in control of their destiny ? Idon't think any country was. But, it is interesting

I disagree. Poland was in a state of anarchy, its governmental system was a sham. There was no centralization. Foreign powers could manipulate the highest offices of the Polish governmental system on a massive scale without resorting to using armed aggression.
I would say countries such as France, Sweden, Russia, Prussia (for example) who were much more stable (during this time, 18th century) had much more control over their destiny.

If the Polish Nobility would get the chance to reform their Political System and make it a centralized All-Polish Kingdom, would they have taken it ? I doubt it.

Of course they would not have 'taken it' Poland at the time consisted of many different sub-groups. There were many Germans, Jews, Ukraines, Ruthenians & Lithuanians living within its borders. Why give up control of these areas, so that neighboring countries can gain power while you lose it? Reforming the political system was not a question of creating an 'all Polish kingdom' (of one language or religion), it was a matter of bringing the magnets into line, centralizing power with the Polish King, creating a strong dynasty, abolishing liberum veto as well as re-organization of the armed forces.


Yes but are we talking about a 'Clash of Civilizations' or 'Competition between Dynasties

In a way it was a clash of civilizations. Norman Davis in his book, 'Gods Playground' describes the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as almost a birth of a new civilization. An establishment of a new cultural and political force that challenged the authority and power of the established HRE (and later the Order).

PS: I would rather call the Polish / Swedish conflicts as 'a clash of dynasties..'


A) emergence of Poland as an independant country in the 10th century; the Germans wanted them as vassals ..'

You mean the 'dynasty' of the Teutonic Order ? Not the German People ?

During the 10th century only the HRE existed as a force that wanted to submit the Poles as vasslas to the HRE. They tried on many occasions. Both the HRE as well as the Teutonic Order were at one time or another at war with the Poles. So I suppose you COULD say it was the German people vs. the Poles, even though it may not have been 'seen' as such back then due to your notion that cultural identity (as well as language) was an abstract notion before the 30 yrs war.


he Order & Lithuania. in the late 14th, early 15th century.'

And Denmark...

Agreed.


Wrong ! Ludendorff and Hindenburg became virtually Dictators. First the arguement was used by them to underline their importance for the German Cause

Fair enough :) But Ludendorff made the comment almost immediately after the battle had concluded, at which time he was still a soldier acting AS a soldier, whatever his personal motives for saying it were. A high ranking soldier, but a soldier nevertheless?

Sapura
 
Just thought I'd slip in an interesting little factoid here, Sapura...

>I would say countries such as France, Sweden, Russia, Prussia (for example) who were much more stable (during this time, 18th century) had much more control over their destiny.

During the 18th century, at least from 1718 and on, Sweden was definitely not politically stable. The death of Charles XII and his failure to protect Sweden from Russia led to a new form of government with a strong parliament and a weak monarch. Two strong parties - the 'Hattar' and 'Mössor' - emerged and started to vie for control. The first was virtually a puppet of France, while the latter was to a lesser degree in England's pocket. The ceaseless bickering and strong foreign influences paralyzed Sweden and made all swift or long-term decisions almost impossible.

So, while Sweden still retained the potential for greatness, it had now started to dance to the pipes of foreign powers.

Now, I am sure that the chaos was even worse in Poland, but in the 18th century, Sweden was no marvel of efficiency either. Ah, if only Axel Oxenstierna had been immortal. :)

/Captain Sweden
 
Yes, Sweden may have been in some trouble. But compared to what was occurring in Poland, Sweden was a model of stability.

Poland had become the 'sick man of Europe' in the 18th century, along with Turkey. Two outdated giants unable to pick themselves up from the ground.

It's almost as sad as the Swedish / Polish conflicts. Poland & Turkey fought for hundreds of years, and in the end they were basically slated, almost by default.

/Commander Poland

[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 13-05-2000).]
 
'Yes, Sweden may have been in some trouble. But compared to what was occurring in Poland, Sweden was a model of stability.'

This is too strong Sap. I concede that Poland was one step down the ladder in decentralized power. But Sweden wasn't a model of stability. When Fredrik I got his stroke in the late 1730's (not sure of the exact year here)the Noble Council started to use a stamp signing every document with his name. This was use until 1772. And note that our Riksdag was as stormy as the Sejmen. Divided in factions as Doomie pointed out. These faction much looked like the Polish Noble Families. In 1743 thousands of Russian soldiers were garrisoned at strategically important places so that they could strike down any peasant revolts that might start. Russia had forced Sweden to elect Adolphus Fredrik, Bishop-Prince of Kiel, as monarch, Swedes normally wanted a danish prince. During this period the two most important persons in Stockholm was the Russian ambassador and secondly the French ambassador.In 1757 our 'Proud' governments most important reason for joining the war against Prussia was that it would severely humiliate our Queen, who they hated. I say: a petty state deserves petty people. :(

'Poland had become the 'sick man of Europe' in the 18th century, along with Turkey. Two outdated giants unable to pick themselves up from the ground.
It's almost as sad as the Swedish / Polish conflicts. Poland & Turkey fought for hundreds of years, and in the end they were basically slated, almost by default.'

But actually, I think that this is true for all countries that contested Russias power and lost. Not long after slaughtering Poland, Sweden was cut in half. And as you say Turkey were also loosers in this game.
You can also look at it like this. Sweden only faced one Major power, so she was halved. Turkey faced two so she was more than halved. Poland faced Major powers at every possible border so she was exterminated.

Just a thought !

/Greven
 
Thanks for enlightening me on Sweden's problems in the 18th century.

I think then, that we can conclude that both Sweden, Poland and Turkey had passed their 'use by dates', had exhausted themselves with constant war in the 17th century (along with their unique internal problems) and this created a power vaccum in that area of Europe that Russia (Under Peter the Great), Prussia and Austria filled.

Sapura
 
'I would say countries such as France, Sweden, Russia, Prussia (for example) who were much more stable (during this time, 18th century) had much more control over their destiny.'

Ok, but what I react against is the last 7 word. In which way have on control of ones destiny ? Life's not a one man show ! You interact in a world of events and chains of events. When you act do you really always know exactly what the consequences will be ?

But if you mean a Poland governed by Poles, then I concur.


'Of course they would not have 'taken it' Poland at the time consisted of many different sub-groups. There were many Germans, Jews, Ukraines, Ruthenians & Lithuanians living within its borders. Why give up control of these areas, so that neighboring countries can gain power while you lose it? Reforming the political system was not a question of creating an 'all Polish kingdom' (of one language or religion)'

No ! Sorry ! That wasn't what I meant with All-Polish Kingdom. Sorry Sap.

' it was a matter of bringing the magnets into line, centralizing power with the Polish King, creating a strong dynasty, abolishing liberum veto as well as re-organization of the armed forces.'

Yes, it was this I meant. (With All-polish, I didn't mean etnical cleansed, but only that it should be only polish kings.)
Then repeat my self. It is the change of doing this reform I don't think they would take. Because the Individual Nobleman would loose power, freedom, and money. It was the same in Sweden. In Sweden a reform was made but only after a military coup by Gustav III. And he got to pay for it with his life in 1792...

---------------------------------------------

We have come far from the initial question of if the North Western Germans would accept living under a Polish King 1492-1618.

I think they would, and you don't... :)

Now this question about the Importance or lack of Importance of the Culto-Linguistic ingrediens in defining what a Political body where over the year. (It content changed over time of course). This is such question historians are divided over, and there are unfortunately, IMHO, no empirical way of finding it out.

I just want to tell you why I don't think it is that important. And it is because the Notion of People used when talking in the terms of Culture, Language, Religion, and Race; is a modern notion. Our todays notion isn't the same as the one entertained by Bismarck and Disraeli, and quite unlike the one fashionable in the 17th century and so on. So what I am saying is that if I am right then them other boys are wrongly exporting modern concepts to elderly contexts.

/Greven
 
(With All-polish, I didn't mean etnical cleansed, but only that it should be only polish kings.)

Ahh is that what you ment :) The Poles did try and reform the system on several occasions, leading to several wars or 'rokosz', however they were never successful.

The magnets were too fat, too loaded (with money) to give up their rights and in this they sealed their own doom and caused the destruction of the Commonwealth. They were too greedy to contribute in the end (leading to the fall of all major governmental posts, as well as defenses). Had Poland reformed its system, as many historians say, no country would have been powerful enough to partition it.


Then repeat my self. It is the change of doing this reform I don't think they would take.

Yes and they didn't :)

We have come far from the initial question of if the North Western Germans would accept living under a Polish King 1492-1618.

think they would, and you don't..

By living under Polish rule, I assume you mean a totally peaceful co-existance, regardless of religion, language or culture?

Perhaps so, but I'm still inclined to agree that differences in culture and language played a vital role, especially when considering LONG TERM rivals in the political arena as well as on the battlefield.

That is the Poles and the Germans. In the same way the French / English have always fought each other. I doubt you'd have French living peacefully under the English or vice versa :)


This is such question historians are divided over, and there are unfortunately, IMHO, no empirical way of finding it out.

Yes, and this is why discussion such as this will continue until the end of time :) Then again, you do have many vital points and you are v. knowledgable about history, however I'm still quite set in my views.

Sapura

[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 13-05-2000).]
 
Gentlemen,

I think this discussion has touched on the crucial question for all empire builders: How do you suborn and assimilate foreign cultures?

As Greven ('The Count' - interesting nickname :)) pointed out, there are no empirical methods for finding out. However, I think that our stormy history can provide us with some of the answers...

So, for what it's worth, I give you 'Doomdark's Official Guide to Empire Building.' Enjoy! :D

Basic Assumption: If your Empire tolerates vastly different cultures, it is destined to fall apart in the end. Leniency works for awhile, but as soon the empire starts to exhibit signs of weakness, it is torn asunder. To a lesser degree, this is also true of Unions and Federations. (We shall see what happens to the EU... :))

Obstructions:

1) Civilization Factor. If the population of the annexed nation enjoyed a higher standard of living, education and personal freedom outside the Empire, absorption will require enormous brutality. The more advanced the Imperial civilization is compared to the annexed one, the easier the integration will be. Example: The Roman Empire.

2) Democracy Factor. There will always be some dissidents and separatists, so a certain measure of brutality is necessary to suppress the conquered people. It follows that democracies can neither build nor maintain Empires. Example: All historical empires.

3) Cultural Factor. The more alien the annexed culture is, the harder it will be to absorb. Culture can be broken down into three separate constituents: language, traditions and religion. If all three are alien to the conquering civilization, absorption will be almost impossible. Example: The Empire of China vs Tibet.

4) Distance Factor. If the conquered nation is separated from the Empire by vast distances of land or sea, integration becomes extremely hard. Depending on the tech level of the Empire, integration could still be possible thanks to advanced transportation and communication techniques. Example: Spain and the Netherlands.

5) Population Factor. If the suborned people vastly outnumbers the conquerors, absorption will always be impossible, unless the cultural differences are negligable. Naturally, repression might still work, but what's the point? :) Example: The British Empire vs India and China.

Solutions

1) The Melting Pot Solution. If the cultural differences are slight, you can force the conquered people to intermingle with your own to the highest degree possible. Strive to disperse all concentrations of the conquered people and forbid the use of any language but your own in all official institutions.

2) The Roman Solution. If the conquered people is primitive and uneducated you can prevent separatism by bringing in the light of your own glorious civilization. Build roads, railways, schools, public baths, etc. Soon, they will strive to emulate you all on their own, and you will hardly have to lift a finger. Just remember to keep a tight leash on those provincial governors. :)

3) The Machiavellian Solution. If distance to the conquered nation is your sole obstruction you can always move your Imperial capital to the conquered territory. The close presence of your administration and goverment will make the conquered people (or colonists) feel like they belong to your nation. The obvious danger is that the reverse could happen! Examples: East Roman Empire, Mongols, Huns, Goths.

4) The Entropy Solution. If you can keep the conquered nation shackled for long enough, its people will inevitably fall to your culture. This might require enormous brutality and will probably take a millennium or two to complete.

5) The Final Solution If all else fails, and you are faced with a high grade of all five obstructions, the only possible solution remaining to you is to kill enough of the conquered people that you can re-colonize the area with your own. Examples: Spain and England vs American natives, China vs Tibet, Soviet vs Everyone.

As you can see, there is always a solution for the devious, cynical and ruthless Empire Builder, as long as he sits safely on his throne... :)

/Doomie
 
'Yes, and this is why discussion such as this will continue until the end of time :) Then again, you do have many vital points and you are v. knowledgable about history, however I'm still quite set in my views.'

We agree to disagree then :)

/Greven
 
Marc,

If I played Spain, you would never get the chance to play the Netherlands. *evil laughter*

But I must confess I have little interest in playing Spain at all - it is far too easy. The same goes for France, Turkey and probably England.

No, I think I will mostly be playing Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Poland, Venice... and, hmm, Scotland would be fun, as would the Teutonic Order and the Papal States.

Trust me; in my games history will never repeat itself... Fear me, Russia; your armies shall be scattered. Tremble England; your fleets shall lie in tatters. Bow down Prussia, you shall swear allegiance. :)

/Doomie
 
We agree to disagree then

/Greven

I agree! :)

Sapura


Doomester,

If you really want a challenge, play either Russia or Portugal in the GC from 1492.

as for..


If your Empire tolerates vastly different cultures, it is destined to fall apart in the end.

Hmm, sounds like Poland? :(


Leniency works for awhile, but as soon the empire starts to exhibit signs of weakness, it is torn asunder

Poland again? :(


If the suborned people vastly outnumbers the conquerors, absorption will always be
impossible, unless the cultural differences are negligable. Naturally, repression might

Absorbtion will always be impossible with conquered people who hold a high value for independence and have tasted the 'fruits' of being 'on top'.

History plays a vital role here. The sons and daughters of the parents of a conquered country will always be able to go back and read historical texts written by their forefathers (at the time of greatness) as well as listen to their parents stories and this will instill a firey patriotism inside them, pushing them to fight onward for independence, no matter how impossible that may be to achieve.

Strive to disperse all concentrations of the conquered people and forbid the use of any language but your own in all official institutions.

This is a practice that has failed many times in history. The use of strong arm tactics, denial of national cultural and historial practices (like speaking the national language in favour of using the tongue of the controlling nation..), has always failed when dealing with vastly patriotic 'conquered' peoples who are large in size numerically to withstand this assault.


If you can keep the conquered nation shackled for long enough, its people will inevitably fall to your culture. This might require enormous brutality and will probably take a millennium or two to complete.

Russia tried to do this to Poland after the partitions, because sections of the Polish aristocracy always revolted causing wars (which at times humiliated the Russian army) and disturbances in the 'western areas of the Russian realm'. Russia used every tactic possible until Polish independence in 1918.

Again in the occupation of WW2 this was also used on an incredibly larger scale by both the Russians and the Germans. However like went on, despite the mass exterminations, rapings & torture. Education continued to flourish (in secret), the Polish culture was not subdued and the Poles continued to fight both in AK units as well as in other armies never giving up hope.

Sapura
 
Hey Sapster,

>Absorbtion will always be impossible with conquered people who hold a high value for independence and have tasted the 'fruits' of being 'on top'.

This is what I labelled the 'Civilization Factor'. If combined with some of the other obstructions it does become virtually impossible, yes.

>This is a practice [The Melting Pot Solution] that has failed many times in history.

Surely, but it has also often succeeded. Look at the early days of the US, or the integration of the Danish territories into Sweden. Again, it might become impossible if combined with some of the other factors I mentioned.

>Russia tried to do this [The Entropy Solution] to Poland after the partitions

Perhaps they tried, but the Entropy Solution hinges on time, and Russia did not control Poland for long enough. It has seldom been successfully completed, but I would point to Egypt (assimilated by Arabs) and the Latin nations of Europe (assimilated by Rome).

We should all be thankful that the Soviet Union did not last for as long as the Roman Empire... If it had, the only culture left within its borders would have been the Russian one.

/Doomie
 
Russia tried to do this [The Entropy Solution] to Poland after the partitions

Perhaps they tried, but the Entropy Solution hinges on time, and Russia did not control Poland for long enough.

Hmm, but we're talking about 150 or so years of occupation? Not just by the Russians but by 2 other powers.

Sapura
 
Sap,

If you go back and read what I originally wrote of the 'Entropy Solution', you will find that I claimed it would take a millennium or two. 150 years is nothing. :)

/Doomie
 
Originally posted by Vaios on 05-10-2000 10:28 PM
A simple question: How can you play countries that aren't avalaible in the scenarios? Any special trick?
Click to expand...

Vaios,

did you receive an answer?
If it is the case, how let us have to be done???



------------------
Si vis pacem, para bellum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back