Charles VII only has a slightly better MIL value.mandead said:
Many modern historians would heavily disagree with these statements.
-
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.
Like an official proposal to remove the French apanages BOU and ORL, along with NRM and AQU? I could try to do that but like I said before, this would mean a huge revision of the HYW files because there are other problems like ownership of Champagne and Nivernais during the first ten years, to name only one.YodaMaster said:
I don't have at the moment the time to do that. I have some ideas and I have been reading a lot trough old threads related to the topic, but it is still on hold for now.
And I still have to finish my sequence for Corsica 1729-1769.
Amended for FRA_1000060. I never saw DAU_1000090 happen in my tests... It is always DAU becoming France first and capital move next.Bordic said:
Don't complain then!Third Angel said:And I still have to finish my sequence for Corsica 1729-1769.
We could at least start with Bourbonnais, most visible and not too involved. I'm not sure for others and gameplay reasons. But a good solution with freed tags can't be bad.
I'll try to stop, sometimes I just can't help myself.YodaMaster said:Don't complain then!
Not as simple as that. Actually BOU has more reasons to exist as a tag than ORL. For historical coherency, we can't remove BOU without removing ORL.
YodaMaster said:
If these cores for Provence/Anjou are fantasy and to be removed and not given back then the other Anjou branch should also not have/gain them.
Remove addcore 404 Piemonte command from events LOR 211006 and LOR 211007 also?
One article I found (german wiki) mentions that the Anjou lost Piemont in 1345 which they conquered in 1306:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_...ence#.C3.A4lteres_Haus_Anjou_.28Kapetinger.29
i don´t know if that was the reason to originally have Provence have a core on Piemont, but it would be a reason for me at least to have Provence gain a core on it with an event like LOR 322006 or 7 "The house of Anjou". Likewise PRO could gain the core with their already existing events PRO 262019 to 262022 or 262027 ("The ducal residence"/"TThe royal residence").
Last edited:
For consistency and historicity, they should be removed because map we have is drawn as it is. And Languedoc (422) is not involved in these events but was core of Provence in 1419 setup... why? Not to mention Dauphiné (407)!ConjurerDragon said:
The main question is: what does represent Piedmont province? Are we talking about Turin or Nice? For me, it is clearly Turin as main city and thus under control of Savoy without any claim of any other country.
Other article where Anjou are not even mentioned and see link to House of Savoy.
OTOH, see House of Anjou. Where is Turin here?
It seems the core has something to do with this battle of Gamenario and not with the dispute of Nice and more with Robert of Naples. Yes I have said of "Naples". That means the core would be a NAP core instead of a PRO core and I am in favour of removing it definitively from PRO, LOR or NAP files as it is completely out of eu2 range.YodaMaster said:
YodaMaster said:
Obviously this is part of a discussion that has already been had probably here and in the french fourm. Could someone give me some links to the arguments for the removal of the minors / where this discussion has been taking place?
It was a discussion between Ribbon and Sire Philippe at first and Renaud Vibien next, IIRC. I can say much French forumers never "liked" Orleans and Bourbonnais being full countries in AGCEEP.
You can take a look to this HYW thread in French for the whole discussion and I related some parts in my post of May 6 2006 in France Thread on Languish (page 3) with political map in 1419 according to provinces for the new map. In first posts, you will find links to the discussion in English here.
You can take a look to this HYW thread in French for the whole discussion and I related some parts in my post of May 6 2006 in France Thread on Languish (page 3) with political map in 1419 according to provinces for the new map. In first posts, you will find links to the discussion in English here.
Last edited:
Because you are making very general and affirmative statements which have been widely contested by french historiography within the last twenty or thirty years. This makes it hard to answer you precisely, and it sounds as if we knew every motivation and every reason behind every historical event, which is of course utterly false.Mandead said:
One has to remember that Charles was only sixteen in 1419, so he was certainly weaker and more easily led than ten or twenty years later. Still it seems (because we are never really sure of how things really happened) that he had the final word about the assassination of Jean sans Peur (some of his counsellors were arguing against it), most likely because he felt that he would have to make so many concessions to regain the Duke to his cause that he would become a mere puppet.
He was just as able as his son to take advantage of the rivalries between his enemies, exploiting for instance the difficulties encountered by Henri VI with the Yorkists to obtain the evacuation of Maine by english troops, or trying hard until 1435 to break the BUR-ENG alliance. He also learned how to play the various clans around him at court, particularly the Angevins and the Armagnacs, against one another to assure his power.
One also has to keep in mind the situation he inherits in 1422. He has no money, nearly no army after 1424, his vassals are either cautiously neutral (BEA), prone to alliance switching (BRI), held prisoners in England (ORL, BOU) or declared traitors (BUR). Now compare it to Louis XI's inheritance in 1461 with its strong and stable administration, its reformed permanent army, its decent finances, I think we can agree his task was somewhat easier.
A word about the fortunes, I assume you are refering to Jacques Coeur. This merchant is quite an exception amongst the King's servants. Most of them owed their fortune to the King through their offices and this is probably the foremost reason why they remained so loyal.
Louis XI made some huge mistakes. The revocation in 1461 of many high-ranking officals, sénéchaux and baillis in the provinces, officers in the army partly led to the War of the Public Weal, since many lesser nobles found themselves suddenly dispossessed after having faithfully served the Crown. There would be many other examples of his authoritarianism. It has to be noted that the news of his death was received as a relievement by most of its contemporaries.
On a more general note, traditional french historiography has had a strong tendency to focus on the struggle between Louis XI and Charles le Téméraire on a personal level, and you are doing exactly the same thing when using the word "nemesis". More recent historians have shown that Charles' ambitions were mostly turned towards the Empire and that Louis had no determining part in the Duke's downfall (there was no direct confrontation between the two men after 1472).
A a last question, wasn't Louis XI a bit lucky when one considers the unexpected deaths of Charles and Marie? Still in the end he only managed to seize Burgundy and Picardy, which were after all rightfully his from the start. He did not gain anything.
I'd be curious to know where you read that. Are you refering to his obsessing fear of being poisoned? It was certainly not wholly unreasonable since his mistress Agnes Sorel had probably been poisoned herself. And Louis XI himself was a bit paranoiac, particularly towards the end of his life (which seems to be quite natural for authoritative rulers BTW), and it certainly didn't make any of them both "mad".
Last edited:
Third Angel said:
And yet didn't he survive the war of public weal relatively unscathed?
Yes, though the realm suffered from the war, and most of the revocated officials of 1461 had to be reinstated to end the revolts. Upon his deathbed he told his son he had made a mistake at the time, to prevent him from doing the same.Garbon said:
Besides so did Charles VII survive the Praguerie and the recurring revolts of Armagnac and Alençon (and the HYW, btw
), or Charles VIII the Guerre Folle. Like I said Louis XI has been greatly overestimated by traditional historiography. He wasn't that much different from his father, or his son.
YodaMaster said:
Okay that didn't work out so well as there is simply so much other stuff to wade through....ummm, could someone give me a breakdown of why it would be better to simulate the current French minors (BOU and ORL) with tax values and the like (I see the proposal but I don't see why it is necessarily better?)? Also what is that separate Anjou in one of those french proposals?
(I'm largely confused as those proposals don't seem to do away with BOU and ORL per se as much as they just merge them under one tag.)
It would have to be scripted and tested to know for sure.Garbon said:
Merging them under French Feudals was one of the latest proposal of Renaud Vibien. I believe this was an attempt to reconcile his point of view with Ribbon's one, who was adamant about keeping the apanages as tags.
IMHO, this was wrong because if there are enough arguments to have an entity called "French Feudals", there are just as many to keep them separate (as much as the map allows of course).
Third Angel said:Yes, though the realm suffered from the war, and most of the revocated officials of 1461 had to be reinstated to end the revolts. Upon his deathbed he told his son he had made a mistake at the time, to prevent him from doing the same.
Besides so did Charles VII survive the Praguerie and the recurring revolts of Armagnac and Alençon (and the HYW, btw
Did he reinstall as many as he had removed in the first place? The reason I ask is that he is generally discussed as having improved the centralization of France.
Third Angel said:
That's more of a dodge than an answer. When proposals are to be included, generally there's evidence put forth of why it is a better simulation than what was previously had.
whats the aim of removing ORL and BOU, ??. What is the problem with leaving them in??
to me its good , as it is. I still prefer when Auvergne existed etc etc
to me its good , as it is. I still prefer when Auvergne existed etc etc