• Crusader Kings II Expansion Subscription

    Subscribe to the CK II Expansion and enjoy unlimited access to 13 major expansions and more!


  • Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning

unmerged(29041)

Amnistiado por viejuno
May 12, 2004
5.496
0
Lawkeeper, do you think that you could do a little lineage for Antoine, with dates, for 3 or 4 monarchs more? The Alonso lineage is made up (new sons of Caterina), but the lineages for the Lusignan and the Montferrat Palaelogi are real. If you don't have one for Antoine (the Burgundian claimants would do), you can just make it up, as long as they are not all called Philip.
 

unmerged(29041)

Amnistiado por viejuno
May 12, 2004
5.496
0
I have fixed Mammeluk's event 24034 that ended in war between Cyprus and Egypt. It is in post #4 above.

IMHO a vassalization is much better than war:
1. Historic
2. More than a war, it was a military expedition (actually two), given the superiority of the Mammeluks.
3. The AI MAM struggles against AI CYP due to the high support limit and the ahistoric defendability of EU2 islands. Sometimes it ends up offering Lebanon (core), usually pays money to CYP: opposite of what it happened.
4. If AI MAM captures Cyprus, it will annex it: more ahistoricity.
5. MAM event 24035, that requires vassalization is now a given, before highly improbable.
6. Do we need a sixth? :)
 

unmerged(29041)

Amnistiado por viejuno
May 12, 2004
5.496
0
Venetian event 3844, triggered by now defunct event 3842 (if my proposition is accepted) has to go. Cyprus was never formally a vassal of Venice. This thing Egypt-Cyprus-Venice ought to be fixed.
IMHO (posts for evaluation in this thread). Cyprus must be a vassal of Egypt (unless decides to break it) and keep good relationship with Venice. My events boost it up regularly. The royal marriage of Caterina cannot be represented in this scenario due to EU2 rules about vassals, but neither was represented in the previous one with the vassalage to Venice. The events will represent it.

Venetian event 3845, the inheritance of Cyprus is still valid, just triggered by a different event. But the text has to be improved. I propose the following:

Code:
#The Inheritance of Cyprus#
event = {
	id = 3845 #Triggered by CYP ??????
	
	random = no
	country = VEN
	name = "The adquisition of Cyprus"
	desc = "Your Highness, the Venetian Queen Caterina Cornaro of Cyprus has finally been convinced by her brother to abdicate the crown of Cyprus to the High Council of Venice. The work of two generations have finally come to fruition. After the ceremony at St. Mark we should start the defensive groundworks in Cyprus. It is a question of time before the Turks send their fleet there."
	style = 1

	action_a ={	#Caterina Cornero offers Cyprus to Venice#
		name = "And so, a kingdom becomes a province"
		command = { type = inherit which = CYP }
		command = { type = addcore which = 484 }
	}
}
 

unmerged(29041)

Amnistiado por viejuno
May 12, 2004
5.496
0
Naples events 239011 and 239012 should go. If I am correct they are grossly ahistorical. Ferrante's attempts at seizing Cyprus were pathetical political plots that had no chance whatsoever of success for as long as he was not willing to commit the troops and galleys to take Cyprus and defend her from the Venetians. Even if the wild marriage attempts would have worked (the only remote possibility), he did not have the force to fight the venetians head on at land and sea on his own.
To add further problems, Alfonso was not a candidate for marriage. He offered one of his daughters to Jacques (I ignore which one, which shows how little consideration was given, so I guessed Leonora that had the right age), and some bastard Alonso, quite unknown to history, to Charla, illegitamate daughter of jacques II, that wasn't even the first in the bastard succesion line, since she was after both Eugene and Jean. This proposal came to a marriage contract that was never realized because the Venetians held Charla prisoner. The offer of Alonso to Caterina was in the mind of Ferrante, and he talked about it because Charlotte (and the Venetians) knew about it, but it is unknow to historians (AFAIK) that it was ever formally proposed to Caterina. Not that she had the power to say yes, since she was totally under control of the Venetians.
All in all pathetic half backed attempts as a shot in the dark to try to get a sweet prize without commiting any resources. The Venetians on the other hand were ready to fight for Cyprus.
 
Feb 12, 2004
4.656
0
Fodoron said:
Lawkeeper, do you think that you could do a little lineage for Antoine, with dates, for 3 or 4 monarchs more? The Alonso lineage is made up (new sons of Caterina), but the lineages for the Lusignan and the Montferrat Palaelogi are real. If you don't have one for Antoine (the Burgundian claimants would do), you can just make it up, as long as they are not all called Philip.
I'm searching on the web for his historical line, but I can't find a real genealogy. I know he's had a great-granddaughter, Anne de Bourgogne (which married the count of Hornes, and after his death the count of Boussu).

I'll continue.

PS : good work, capitano generale. Your intelligence service is very efficient. ;)
 
Feb 12, 2004
4.656
0
lawkeeper said:
I'm searching on the web for his historical line, but I can't find a real genealogy. I know he's had a great-granddaughter, Anne de Bourgogne (which married the count of Hornes, and after his death the count of Boussu).

I'll continue.
Found. :)

http://genealogy.euweb.cz/capet/capet30.html

Code:
Antoine, "le Grand batard de Bourgogne", Cte de la Roche et de Grandpre, Heer van Beveren, *1421, +Chateau Tournehem nr Calais 5.5.1504, bur Tournehem-en-Artois; m.Brussels 26.6.1459 Jeanne/Marie !brig!, Vcts d'Aire, dau.of Pierre de la Viefville, Vcte d'Aire. They had issue: 

A1. Philippe, Cte de la Roche, Heer van Beveren, +Bruges 4.7.1498; m.4.7.1485 Anna van Borselen (*ca 1471 +Zandenburg
    Castle 8.12.1518), dau.of Wolfert VI van Borselen 
	B1. Adolf, Cte de la Roche, Heer van Beveren, Vere and Vlissingen, *Castle Zandenburg 1489, +Beveren 7.12.1540; 		    m.18.6.1509 Anne de Glymes (*16.9.1492 +15.2.1541), dau.of Johann III de Glymes 
		C1. Philipp, *Bergen op Zoom 1512, +young 
		C2. Maximilian, Marquis de Vere et de Vlissingen, *Bergen 28.7.1514, +Zandenburg 4.6.1558; m.Brussels 				    1.5.1542 Louise de Croy (*1524, +after 1585) 
		C3. Henry, *Zandenburg 1519, +1532 
		C4. Anne, *Zandenburg 3.4.1516, +Bossu 25.3.1551, bur Bossu; 1m: 1530 Gf Jakob III von Horn (+15.8.1531); 			    2m: 1532 Jean de Hennin Cte de Bossu (+1562) 
		C5. Jacqueline, *Zandenburg 1523, +1556; 1m: 1540 John de Flandre, of Praet (+1545); 2m: Zandenburg 1549 			    Johann VI von Kruiningen, Bggve of Seeland (+1559) 
		C6. a dau.,*1526, +young 
		C7. Antoinette, *Zandenburg 29.5.1529, +Doornick 29.5.1588; 1m: Brussels 1.12.1549 Charles de Croy, Duc 			    d'Arschot (*31.7.1522 +24.6.1551); 2m: 1569 Jacques d'Anneux, sn d'Aubencourt (+1588) 
		C8. [illegitimate by Anne de Ranteres, Dame de Fontaines] Philippe, legitimized 1534, +after 1567; 				    m.Jeanne de Hesdin (+after 1567) 
			D1. Adolphe, sn de Fontaines, +young 
			D2. Maximilian, sn de Fontaines, +young 
			D3. Jean, sn de Fontaines, +after 3.6.1580; m.Antoinette de Valladolid 
				E1. Marie; m.Rene de Baronaige
			D4. Martin, +k.a.Alcacer 1578 
			D5. Nicolas, living 1567 
			D6. Anne, +1558; m.Jacques de Smidt 
			D7. Louise, living 1567 
			D8. Jeanne; m.Antonio de Valladolid 
			D9. Marie, Dame de Beerlandt; m.Emmery van Liere
	B2. Charlotte; m.1499 Jost van Kruiningen, Bggve of Seeland 
	B3. Anna, +1512; m.1504 Johan van Glymes (+1514) 
	B4. Marguerite, Dame de Henin-Lietard, +1522; m.1490 Jacques Malet, sn de Coupigny (+1507)
A2. Jeanne de Bourgogne, +Hoogstraten 9.2.1511, bur Culemborgen; m.Bruges 27.2.1471 Jasper II van Culemborg (+21.11.1504) 
A3. Marie, +young 
    [illegitimate by Marie de Braem] 
A4. Nicolas, a priest in Utrecht, +1520 
A5. Anton van Bourgogne, Heer van Wakkene en Kapelle, +4.4.1535, bur Bruges; m.Klara van Wakkene (+after 31.8.1519/ before     6.1.1525) 
	B1. Philipp von Burgund, +1508, bur Bogaerde 
	B2. Adolf, Gov of Seeland, +Middelburg 1568; 1m: N von Vichte; 2m: 1545 Jacqueline de Guines de Bonnieres
	    (+Middelburg 1579) 
	B3. Anton von Burgund, Gov of Seeland, +k.a.Middelburg 1573; m.Anna von Lummen gt von der Marck 
		C1. Anton, +in Spain 1601; m.1579 Anne de Guines de Bonnieres 
			D1. Anton, +Tergoes before 1594 
			D2. Karl, Cte de Wacken, Gov of Seeland, +Wakkene 1632, bur there; 1m: Maria del Pardo (+1623); 				    2m: 1626 Maria Anna von Bronckhorst 
				E1. a son, +young 
				E2. Willem Karl, Cte de Wacken, *1627, +1667; m.1658 Maria Anna van dem Tympel, Css von 					    Mulert & d'Autreppes 
					F1. Willem Karl, Cte de Wacken, *1660, +1707; 1m: Jeanne Marie de Rubempre; 2m: 						    1685 Honorine Marie de Bette 
					F2. Philipp Franz Joseph, *1662, +shortly after 1667
			D3. Frederik, +Doornick 1653; 1m: Madeleine de Bersacques (+1637, bur Doornick); 2m: Anna de 			    		    Menesses 
				E1. Karl Frederik, *1614, +1642, bur Doornick 
				E2. Anna; m.N Baron von der Marck (+1626)
			D4. Emanuel, +1640; m.Anna Rodriguez de Evora y Vega 
				E1. Anton Franz, a Jesuit, *Ghent 1632, +there 1676
			D5. Johan Franz, +k.a. before 1628 
			D6. Anton, a Jesuit in Bruges, *there 1594, +there 1657 
			D7. Anna, *Antwerp 1588, living 1628; m.Jean de Menesses 
			D8. Maria, m.1641 Franz von Stopelaere (+1654) 
			D9. Eleonore, a nun at Bourbourg, living 1628 
			D10. Antoinette, +1637/40 
			D11. Magdalena, living 1628 
			D12. Maria Christina, +young
		C2. Philipp, +young 
		C3. Isabelle; m.Jean Charles de Cottrell, sn du Bois-de-Lessines 
		C4. Anna, *1549, +1561, bur Assenede 
		C5. Maria, +1627, bur Ghent; m.Geoffroy d'Ethe, sn d'Hautemont (+1627)
	B4. Andries, +Berghes-sur-l'Escaut after 1547 
	B5. Anna, +1552; m.Nicolas Triest (+1570)

As you may see, in 1489 Antoine is already 68 old. :cool:
 

unmerged(29041)

Amnistiado por viejuno
May 12, 2004
5.496
0
Cool thanks, yes he is old, but he lasts until 1504. That's good enough for a last war :D. After all he can sit at the shade and tell those youngsters how they fought in the good old days before he commands them to battle.
 

unmerged(29041)

Amnistiado por viejuno
May 12, 2004
5.496
0
And here is the list of monarchs:

Code:
# Kingdom of Cyprus #

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 04870 }
	name = "Janus"
	startdate = { year = 1399 }
	deathdate = { 
		day = 28
		month = june
		year = 1432
	}
	DIP = 3
	ADM = 6
	MIL = 4
	dormant = no
}

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 04871 }
	name = "Jean II"
	startdate = { 
		day = 28
		month = june
		year = 1432
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 26
		month = july
		year = 1458
	}
	DIP = 5
	ADM = 6
	MIL = 5
	dormant = no
}

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 04872 }
	name = "Charlotte"
	startdate = { 
		day = 26
		month = july
		year = 1458
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 16
		month = july
		year = 1487
	}
	DIP = 3
	ADM = 4
	MIL = 3
	dormant = no
	remark = "Possibly deposed/restored through events"

}

historicalmonarch = {  
	id = { type = 6 id = 04878 }
	name = "Charlotte"
	startdate = { 
		day = 26
		month = july
		year = 1458
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 16
		month = july
		year = 1487
	}
	DIP = 3
	ADM = 4
	MIL = 3
	dormant = yes
	remark = "Version for Restoration"

}

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 04873 }
	name = "Jacques II"
	startdate = { 
		day = 26
		month = september
		year = 1460
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 6
		month = july
		year = 1473
	}
	DIP = 4
	ADM = 6
	MIL = 7
	dormant = no
}

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 04874 }
	name = "Jacques III"
	startdate = { 
		day = 6
		month = july
		year = 1473
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 26
		month = august
		year = 1474
	}
	DIP = 5
	ADM = 5
	MIL = 5
	dormant = no
}

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 04875 }
	name = "Caterina Cornero"
	startdate = { 
		day = 26
		month = august
		year = 1474
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 26
		month = february
		year = 1489
	}
	DIP = 7
	ADM = 6
	MIL = 5
	dormant = no
}

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 04876 }
	name = "Cypriot Council *"
	startdate = { 
		day = 26
		month = february
		year = 1489
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1821
	}
	DIP = 3
	ADM = 3
	MIL = 3
	dormant = no
}

 ######################################
 # The Lusignan restoration (real branch, by Fodoron)
 ######################################

historicalmonarch = {  
	id = { type = 6 id = 04877 }
	name = "Herion Lusignan"
	startdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = july
		year = 1491
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1512
	}
	DIP = 3
	ADM = 4
	MIL = 4
	dormant = yes
	remark = "second cousin of Jacques, grandson of Henri Lusignan de Galilee"
}

historicalmonarch = {  
	id = { type = 6 id = 04879 }
	name = "Philippe Lusignan"
	startdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1512
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1546
	}
	DIP = 5
	ADM = 4
	MIL = 3
	dormant = yes
}

historicalmonarch = {  
	id = { type = 6 id = 04880 }
	name = "Phoebus Lusignan"
	startdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1546
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1551
	}
	DIP = 3
	ADM = 6
	MIL = 3
	dormant = yes
}

historicalmonarch = {  
	id = { type = 6 id = 04881 }
	name = "Jason Lusignan"
	startdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1551
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 16
		month = july
		year = 1570
	}
	DIP = 3
	ADM = 4
	MIL = 6
	dormant = yes
	remark = "Brother of Phoebus"
}

historicalmonarch = {  
	id = { type = 6 id = 04882 }
	name = "Pierre-Antoine Lusignan"
	startdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1570
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1592
	}
	DIP = 5
	ADM = 6
	MIL = 3
	dormant = yes
	remark = "Last of the Lusignans known to me"
}

 ######################################
 # Naples branch (all but the first imaginary, by Fodoron)
 ######################################

historicalmonarch = {  
	id = { type = 6 id = 04883 }
	name = "Caterina & Alonso"
	startdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = november
		year = 1473
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 10
		month = july
		year = 1510
	}
	DIP = 7
	ADM = 6
	MIL = 7
	dormant = yes
	remark = "Version for Restoration"
}


historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 04884 }
	startdate = {
		day = 10
		month = july
		year = 1510
	}
	deathdate = {
		day = 1
		month = January
		year = 1538
	}
	name = "Fernando d’Aragona*"
	DIP = 4
	MIL = 6
	ADM = 3
	dormant = yes
}

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 04885 }
	startdate = {
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1538
	}
	deathdate = {
		day = 1
		month = January
		year = 1575
	}
	name = "Alfonso d’Aragona*"
	DIP = 4
	MIL = 4
	ADM = 7
	dormant = yes
}

 ######################################
 # Burgundy branch (real descendants of Philip III of Burgundy, by Fodoron & Lawkeeper)
 ######################################

historicalmonarch = {  
	id = { type = 6 id = 04886 }
	name = "Antoine de Bourgogne"
	startdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1483
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1504
	}
	DIP = 5
	ADM = 6
	MIL = 9
	dormant = yes
	remark = "Le Grand Batard"
}

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 04887 }
	startdate = {
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1504
	}
	deathdate = {
		day = 1
		month = January
		year = 1518
	}
	name = "Philippe de Bourgogne"
	DIP = 4
	MIL = 6
	ADM = 3
	dormant = yes
}

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 04888 }
	startdate = {
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1518
	}
	deathdate = {
		day = 1
		month = January
		year = 1540
	}
	name = "Adolphe de Bourgogne"
	DIP = 6
	MIL = 4
	ADM = 5
	dormant = yes
}

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 04889 }
	startdate = {
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1540
	}
	deathdate = {
		day = 1
		month = January
		year = 1558
	}
	name = "Maximilien de Bourgogne"
	DIP = 4
	MIL = 4
	ADM = 7
	dormant = yes
}

 ######################################
 # Palaeologhi branch (Margraves of Montferrat, by Fodoron)
 ######################################

historicalmonarch = {  
	id = { type = 6 id = ?????? }
	name = "Boniface III"
	startdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1483
	}
	deathdate = { 
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1494
	}
	DIP = 7
	ADM = 6
	MIL = 7
	dormant = yes
}

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = ??????? }
	startdate = {
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1494
	}
	deathdate = {
		day = 1
		month = January
		year = 1518
	}
	name = "Guillaume IX"
	DIP = 4
	MIL = 6
	ADM = 3
	dormant = yes
}

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = ?????? }
	startdate = {
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1518
	}
	deathdate = {
		day = 1
		month = January
		year = 1530
	}
	name = "Boniface IV"
	DIP = 6
	MIL = 2
	ADM = 4
	dormant = yes
}
historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = ?????? }
	startdate = {
		day = 1
		month = january
		year = 1530
	}
	deathdate = {
		day = 1
		month = January
		year = 1533
	}
	name = "Jean Georges"
	DIP = 4
	MIL = 4
	ADM = 7
	dormant = yes
}
 
Feb 12, 2004
4.656
0
After Maximilian, you could go with his bastard brother, as I have not found further descendants (and other lines go to the sixth generation). Philippe is legitimized in 1534. And he has a son. This could lead to problems with his stepbrothers (those who married his half-sisters). After him, there's Jean de Fontaine, and his daugther (which married René de Baronaige).

Later, there's the collateral line (A5). It ends with Willem Karl in 1707.
 

unmerged(29041)

Amnistiado por viejuno
May 12, 2004
5.496
0
I am not taking the work of making 4 complete lineages for Cyprus. A country that almost none plays (waste of IDs). You are stuck with the last of the lineage (or revert to the Regency Council, I am not sure what will happen). I made sure it has a decent ADM so you can convert.
 

unmerged(6159)

Field Marshal
Oct 23, 2001
9.458
0
Visit site
Fodoron said:
Naples events 239011 and 239012 should go. If I am correct they are grossly ahistorical. Ferrante's attempts at seizing Cyprus were pathetical political plots that had no chance whatsoever of success for as long as he was not willing to commit the troops and galleys to take Cyprus and defend her from the Venetians. Even if the wild marriage attempts would have worked (the only remote possibility), he did not have the force to fight the venetians head on at land and sea on his own.

Not sure I agree with that assesment. I'll go back to my sources, but as I understand it, Alfonso of Naples was the candidate of the latin nobles, who were dispersed by Pietro Mocenigo. I certainly agree that Naples couldn't have had Cyprus without fighting for it, and they showed no real sign of doing so, however, I disagree that Ferrante couldn't have faced down Venice. Naples gave Florence a very rough handling in the Pazzi war of 1476, and beat the Papal forces quite handily in 1484. Alfonso of Calabria was a pretty good general, and Ferrante was known for his diplomatic scheming with the Ottomans. In real life he might have put his son on the throne, either with the help of the Ottomans (who may have been unlikely to help him, but certainly had a motive to do so), or with the help of various Italian states who had had enough of Venice's aggresive politics (Florence and Milan were allied, and both had plenty of grievances against Venice).

So I can't see that it's that unrealistic.
 

unmerged(6159)

Field Marshal
Oct 23, 2001
9.458
0
Visit site
There is another Paleogi who was an illegitimate son of the last margrave of Montferrat (before the Mantuan sucession). I can't remember his name, but there is an event for Mantua about their executing him.
 

unmerged(29041)

Amnistiado por viejuno
May 12, 2004
5.496
0
Alfonso II., King of Naples (4 November 1448-19 November 1495), married on 10 October 1465 to Ippolita Maria Sforza (1445-1488), daughter of Francesco Sforza († 1466), Duke of Milan.

He was therefore not available to marry Charla Lusignan or Caterina Cornero during the time of the coup (1473). Acording to my sources the name of the candidate varies between Alonso and Alonzo, but not Alfonso. He is also said to have been an illegitimate son of Ferrante (He had too many to keep track of all), wich Alfonso wasn't.

Obviously Naples was the Pope's strong arm, and as such had its military importance, but he was defeated in the Polesine war at that time by Venice. This does not say much, of course, but the most important factor was that Naples was not a maritime power, and as such would have been at a terrible disadvantage over the issue of Cyprus, that required a powerful navy both to be taken and to be defended.
 

unmerged(6159)

Field Marshal
Oct 23, 2001
9.458
0
Visit site
Naples was in fact a maritime power, just not an important one. It contributed 17 galleys so to Mocenigo's fleet in 1472-3. Still they would have needed help to secure Cyprus, although I see no reason why that help couldn't be Italian (vs the Terra Ferma) rather than naval. Either might have been enough, if sucessful, to force Venice to disgorge Cyprus.

As to Alfonso II's military record, it is pretty good. I don't know what you're talking about in the Ferrara war - in that war Alfonso crushed the papal army under Roberto Malatesta at Campo Morte. He then marched on Ferrara which the Venetians were besieging. Upon his approach most the Venetian army invaded Lombardy to try to change the Milanese government and end the war. Alfonso countered by invading the Brescia-Verona area, forcing the Venetian army off Milanese territory. A war of maneuver with no significant battles, and one in which he was reasonbaly sucessful.

In addition he beat Ercole d'Este at Poggibonsi in 1478, captured Otranto form the Turks in 1480 (admittedly against pretty feeble opposition), and held off Roberto Sanseverino in 1486.
 

unmerged(29041)

Amnistiado por viejuno
May 12, 2004
5.496
0
Well, kudos to Alfonso. I have no problem in accepting defeat in discussing Italian history with you. I like to do it because I learn from you.

But the issue with Cyprus still stands:
1) As far as I know, the heir of Naples never married or engaged any Lusignan, so inheritance from Naples is ruled out.
2) There was an offer by Ferrante of one of her daughters to Jacques II, and the offer was refused.
3) The Catalan plot (as I call it because the main conspirators in Cyprus were catalans supporting the Aragonian rulers of Naples), originally intended to marry Charla Lusignan to Alonso d'Aragona with the aprobal of former Queen Charlotte that adopted the young couple and went as far as to travel to Cairo to try to get approval from the Bey, but she couldn't. Charla was at the very least fourth in the succession line according to Jacques testament. Alonso was no heir to Naples. I fail to see how an inheritance of Cyprus could come out of it. At most a suplantation of rulers in Cyprus. According to my sources, Charla signed a marriage contract but never married, and died a prisoner of the Venetians in Padua, where she was held with her brothers and grandmother.
4) Ferrante's plan then shifted to try an engagement between Alonso and Caterina. This plan met the reprobation of Charlotte and the Pope. The plan was as wild or more as the previous, because Caterina was a prisoner of the Venetians, althought it is said that she could have entertained the possibility of stopping being a widow in the interest of her country (Cyprus).

I have tried to represent these historic events as better as possible given my limitations as a scripter. I defend that events that end in the inheritance of Cyprus by Naples are not historically plausible. The inheritance of Cyprus by Venice required the effort of two generations, with loss of lives, and Venice was willing to send his best fleet commander and Capitano Generale, in the middle of a disastrous war against the Turks, just to secure Cyprus. It was extreamely important to Venice to be able to offset the loses to the Turks with the gain of Cyprus. I believe that Cyprus historic events should not allow for a different outcome unless a human player is involved.


From a Genealogy page (they all seem to copy each other):

Code:
C1. [2m.] King JEAN III of Cyprus (1432-58), titular Pr of Antioch, *Nicosia 16.5.1418, +Nicosia 28.7.1458; 1m: 1440 Amadea de Montferrat (*3.8.1429 +13.9.1440); 2m: Nicosia 3.2.1442 Helena Palaiologina (*1428 +11.4.1458)
	D1. [2m.] Queen CHARLOTTE of Cyprus (1458-60), *1442/3, +Rome 16.7.1487; 1m: 1456 Infant Joao of Portugal, Duque de Coimbra (*1433 +murdered 1457); 2m: 4.10.1459 Louis de Savoie (*5.6.1436 +VIII.1482)
	D2. [2m.] Cleopha, +young
	D3. [illegitimate by Marieta de Patras] King JACQUES II "Bastardo" of Cyprus (1460-73), *Nicosia ca 1438/39, +Famagusta 10.7.1473; m.(by proxy) Venice 30.7.1468, (in person) Famagusta X.1472 Caterina Cornaro (*25.11.1454 +10.7.1510)
		E1. King JACQUES III of Cyprus (1473-74), *1473, +1474
		E2. [illegitimate] Eugene, +Venice after 1523; m.NN
		E3. [illegitimate] Janus, +after 1533; m.N de Toro
		E4. [illegitimate] Charlotte, +ca 1469; m.after 1463 Sor de Naves
		E5. [illegitimate] Charla, *1468, +in prison in Padua 1480; she was either married or engaged to Alonso, batard d'Aragona (*1460, +1510)

I have an independent source in:
Hazard, H. W., Editor
The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
(A History of the Crusades, volume, III)
Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1975

URL to cite for this work: http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/History.CrusThree

It is available electronically and besides being a great read, it has a wonderful chapter on the history of Cyprus, that is the source of 90% of my knowledge. Some of the data I have confirmed on other sources also available on the net, but this one has the greatest level of detail.
 

unmerged(6159)

Field Marshal
Oct 23, 2001
9.458
0
Visit site
That's a great source.

I went back to Norwich. He does indeed say that the Alfonso that was to be married to Catherine was a bastard son of Ferdinand I. However, the index of the book has only one listing for both Alfonso's, so Norwich is at the very least ambiguous, and more likely wrong. He mentions two plots to make a Neapolitan marriage for Catherine, one in 1474, and one in 1488. Both are in your source. You're quite right that Alfonso II is married in 1474, so it couldn't possibly be him at that date. It IS possible that it would have been him on the second date (right before the annexation was forced on Catherine), as his wife is dead by then. It's not entirely clear which Alfonso it is from your source. However, the simpler interpretation is that the latins tried to repeat the pot that had failed 14 years earlier. Anyway, even if Alfonso married Catherine in 1488 there is no way that Federigo could inherit as he'd only be Catherine's stepson.

At any rate you're underating the coup of 1474 - Catherine was bodily seized and forced to assent to the marriage to Alonso, and her Ventian counsellors were killed and mutilated. The coup was abortive, but it forced Mocenigo to return with his fleet to Cyprus to supress it. If Mocenigo doesn't come back (for whatever reason) it's quite plausible that the marriage could have come off. As you say, this wouldn't have lead to a Neapolitan inheritance, but would have changed things dramtically.

I don't think that human Vencie should be guaranteed the inheritance - 95% odds is fine. Sure you have to invest a lot, but the return is excellent 95% of the time. That you lose it all 5% of the time is certainly an acceptable risk (no-one would sensibly change their choices because of this risk), and is much more realistic than the supposition that the Venetians would have inherited Cyprus no matter what.

By the way, your link also has some veyr nice info on the duchy of Athens. For example I didn't know that Florence purchased Leghorn (Livorno) form Genoa in 1421 when Visconti of Milan was threatening Genoa. As Leghorn became one of the most important ports under the Hapsburgs in Italy in the 18th century it's a pretty significant event. There also mention that the widow of the Duke of Athens tried to obtain the duchy for her Greek relatives in 1435, which might provide a nice start point for a sequence to Hellenize that state.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(6159)

Field Marshal
Oct 23, 2001
9.458
0
Visit site
Fodoron said:
Regarding the title of king of Jerusalem, for as long as there is a king in Cyprus the title is ours :D. The mess with the title of king of Jerusalem started when Cyprus was lost to the venetians who could not held a title. Savoy claimed it because of Charlotte and the Pope started to give it away and take it back.
My own opinion: it reverted back to the bey of the Mammeluks, suzerain of Cyprus and legal owner of Jerusalem. :D

That's not quite right. The Savoyard claim descends from the Lusignan Kings of Cyprus, but the only present day holder of the title of King of Jerusulem is Juan Carlos I, whose claim comes from the Angevins in Naples. In the 13th century, Charles of Anjou had acquired the title from a daughter of Isabeau, with papal help, and he conquered the remnants of the Kingdom in 1277 leaving the other line stuck in Cyprus. After all of the mainland holdings of the crusaders had been freed by the muslims both the Kings of Cyprus and the Angevin Kings of Naples claimed the Kingdom. So, even in 1419 you have Juanna II of Naples and Janus of Cyprus claiming the title.

Now when Juanna dies in 1435 both of the claimants to the throne of Naples (Rene of Anjou and Alfonso of Aragon) claim the title through their descent from Charles of Anjou. Upon the death of Alfonso the Magnanimous (VII and I) his claim passes to the royal house of Aragon (Naples is ruled an illegitimate line) and from there to the Spanish royal family. Upon the death of Rene d'Anjou his claim to the kingdom of Jerusalem passes to the Dukes of Lorraine, but is also claimed by the royal house of France (Charles VIII is a direct descendant of Charles of Anjou). In addition to pressing his claim on Naples when he invaded Italy in 1494 , Charles VIII intended to press his claim on the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The French kings maintained their claim until Louis XII was forced to stop using it by the peace treaty of Blois with Spain in 1505.

Ultimately, the Aragonese claims end up in the mess of the War of the Spanish Sucession, after which the Spanish claim is ceded to the Austrian Hapsburgs in the peace treaty. However, after the War of Polish Sucession the Austrian Hapsburgs cede their rights to the title to Charles VII of Naples who later became Charles III of Spain. Because he wasn't supposed to become King of Spain (a half brother was) the status of the title was ambiguous, and both the Kings of Spain and the Kings of Naples claimed the title from 1759 onwards.

On the other hand, the Lorraine claim to KoJ passes to the Austrian Hapsburgs, through Emperor Francis I, Grand Duke of Tuscany, despite the Hapsburgs having given up the Aragonese claim. Lorraine didn't really assert the claim until 1700. Austria claimed the Kingdom all the way to 1918.

From 1485 the Dukes of Savoy and then Kings of Sardinia asserted the Cypriot claim due to their descent from Charlotte, who really had the best genealogical case. From 1474 to 1485 Charlotte maintained the claim of course. From 1489 Venice asserted the Cypriot claim on her own behalf and continued to do so until the end of the Republic.

Anyway, only the Venetian and Savoyard claim depend on Cyprus not existing. The others don't accept that Cyprus has the right to the title.

Furthermore, any alternate line that isn't descended from Charlotte would certainly be opposed by the Dukes of Savoy. They actually tried to invade Cyprus to displace Catherine. Could be good for fantasy events.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(34273)

First Lieutenant
Sep 13, 2004
289
0
Isaac Brock said:
That's not quite right. The Savoyard claim descends from the Lusignan Kings of Cyprus, but the only present day holder of the title of King of Jerusulem is Juan Carlos I, whose claim comes from the Angevins in Naples. In the 13th century, Charles of Anjou had acquired the title from a daughter of Isabeau, with papal help, and he conquered the remnants of the Kingdom in 1277 leaving the other line stuck in Cyprus. After all of the mainland holdings of the crusaders had been freed by the muslims both the Kings of Cyprus and the Angevin Kings of Naples claimed the Kingdom. So, even in 1419 you have Juanna II of Naples and Janus of Cyprus claiming the title.

Now when Juanna dies in 1435 both of the claimants to the throne of Naples (Rene of Anjou and Alfonso of Aragon) claim the title through their descent from Charles of Anjou. Upon the death of Alfonso the Magnanimous (VII and I) his claim passes to the royal house of Aragon (Naples is ruled an illegitimate line) and from there to the Spanish royal family. Upon the death of Rene d'Anjou his claim to the kingdom of Jerusalem passes to the Dukes of Lorraine, but is also claimed by the royal house of France (Charles VIII is a direct descendant of Charles of Anjou). In addition to pressing his claim on Naples when he invaded Italy in 1494 , Charles VIII intended to press his claim on the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The French kings maintained their claim until Louis XII was forced to stop using it by the peace treaty of Blois with Spain in 1505.

Ultimately, the Aragonese claims end up in the mess of the War of the Spanish Sucession, after which the Spanish claim is ceded to the Austrian Hapsburgs in the peace treaty. However, after the War of Polish Sucession the Austrian Hapsburgs cede their rights to the title to Charles VII of Naples who later became Charles III of Spain. Because he wasn't supposed to become King of Spain (a half brother was) the status of the title was ambiguous, and both the Kings of Spain and the Kings of Naples claimed the title from 1759 onwards.

On the other hand, the Lorraine claim to KoJ passes to the Austrian Hapsburgs, through Emperor Francis I, Grand Duke of Tuscany, despite the Hapsburgs having given up the Aragonese claim. Lorraine didn't really assert the claim until 1700. Austria claimed the Kingdom all the way to 1918.

From 1485 the Dukes of Savoy and then Kings of Sardinia asserted the Cypriot claim due to their descent from Charlotte, who really had the best genealogical case. From 1474 to 1485 Charlotte maintained the claim of course. From 1489 Venice asserted the Cypriot claim on her own behalf and continued to do so until the end of the Republic.

Anyway, only the Venetian and Savoyard claim depend on Cyprus not existing. The others don't accept that Cyprus has the right to the title.

Furthermore, any alternate line that isn't descended from Charlotte would certainly be opposed by the Dukes of Savoy. They actually tried to invade Cyprus to displace Catherine. Could be good for fantasy events.

Impressing.........
 

unmerged(29041)

Amnistiado por viejuno
May 12, 2004
5.496
0
I am also impressed but the depth of your knowledge. Do you write books?

Now back to cyprus

Isaac Brock said:
At any rate you're underating the coup of 1474 - Catherine was bodily seized and forced to assent to the marriage to Alonso, and her Ventian counsellors were killed and mutilated. The coup was abortive, but it forced Mocenigo to return with his fleet to Cyprus to supress it. If Mocenigo doesn't come back (for whatever reason) it's quite plausible that the marriage could have come off. As you say, this wouldn't have lead to a Neapolitan inheritance, but would have changed things dramtically.

I don't think I am underrating it. The plan was to marry Charla to Alonso and legitimize them through Charlotte's adoption and the Bey's blessing. The marriage of Caterina was not in the charts then. She was the mother of the King Jacques III (still alive during the coup). The whole idea, if I understand it, was to illegitimize Jacques III and Caterina and supplant them with Charla and Alonso, who could hardly claim a better right.

If it sounds far fetched that they would marry two bastards to supplant the legitimate king, who was her half-brother, only because they had the support of the desperate childless widow and former queen, it is because it probably was far fetched. If it had gone wrong and Caterina and her child had died (worst possible outcome) Venice would have taken the island immediately, since as Caterina was the "Daughter of St. Mark", Venice was her heir. It was all quite well thought by the Venetians.

Nevertheless if you think that Venice should lose Cyprus 5% of the time to spice things up, I can take the double insurance out. But I thought that the idea was to follow history as closely as possible, while only allowing for alternate history at crossroads where it was clear that chance had played an important role.

I personally believe that the moment Jacques signed his marriage contract with Caterina, Cyprus was lost to Venice. And the choice of Caterina was not freely done, because Jacques was then very strongly in the hands of the Venetians, both for money and support.

One of the possible lines in my sequence of events is the marriage of caterina and Alonso. this line can be taken at two points. Right after the catalan coup if one decides to support it and then after the death of Jacques III, Caterina and Alonso d'Aragona become kings of Cyprus. The other after the Regency council of 1489 Caterina can be chosen together with Alonso as one of the four options.

So as you can see Ferrante ends up with three shots at installing a friendly ruler in Cyprus if we include the choice between Leonora and Caterina. This one in 1469 ends up in the reinstating of Charlotte after Jacques II is killed if one decides to follow it. Then when Charlotte dies we go back to the regency council.
 

unmerged(6159)

Field Marshal
Oct 23, 2001
9.458
0
Visit site
I'd agree that 3 chances is pretty generous. The whole thing was pretty half-baked anyway. Norwich definitely says that the coup in 1474 was intended to marry Caterina to Alonso, NOT to Charlotte. That said, it doesn't relaly matter, and he may well be wrong again.

Realistically for the Cypriots to stay out of Venetian control they'd have had to have put themselves under someone stronger than Venice. Realistically this means France or Aragon (the Ottomans presumably being an unattractive option for the Latins:)). Naples under Ferrante certainly wsn't a good choice. I can't help but think that if Alfonso the Magnanimous had still been King of Aragon and Naples he would have jumped at the chance, and probably could have pulled it off. But he died in 1458.

Or, I suppose, if they could have kept Caterina in place as Queen until 1501 or so (she died in 1505 I think) I suspect they could have convinced Ferdinand the Catholic to take up the job. He was King of Aragon and Naples by that point, and had an army and fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Oh well that's all idle speculation. The wa you're doing it seems pretty realsitic.