I'm not sure about the name of action_d - "The residence of the Emperor shall be capital" - it feels like there's something missing. Our capital, perhaps?
-
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.
Yep, "our capital" is better, thank you. Changed that.|AXiN| said:
Btw, should I post all versions of the events (that would differ only by their ID, the country tag of the receiving country and a few words in the desc) in this thread or is it better to avoid spamming this thread (since it is supposed to be for discussion) and post them in a separate thread that the submission references to?
I don't know, it still sounds kind of forced. Perhaps "Our capital shall remain the Emperor's residence"?
I'd go for only posting examples here, and then having a seperate thread for the submission
I'd go for only posting examples here, and then having a seperate thread for the submission
Hmm, it is supposed to work the other way round - the city that the emperor has resided in (i.e. the capital of the country that has formed Germany) is chosen as centre of the Empire and site of the most important central institutions.|AXiN| said:
Maybe "Make the old residence capital of the Empire"?
Sounds good, better not spamming this thread.
What about the difficult question on leaders? I could always start with finding 100 ID's in a row. Is it intentional to use another ID range than the one for GER, 366000? Not that it matters much now when the compiler warns for conflicts.
What about the difficult question on leaders? I could always start with finding 100 ID's in a row. Is it intentional to use another ID range than the one for GER, 366000? Not that it matters much now when the compiler warns for conflicts.
A large ID range for leaders and an even larger one for monarchs would be good. We need to reach a consensus on which leaders to include in the file soon.Norrefeldt said:
No, I was just using a pretty random range since I figured that IDs would need to be changed (to the ID ranges used by the respective countries) anyway. They are going to be in the correct ranges in the thread where I post the events.
That should doNorrefeldt said:
So is there a possibility for compromise regarding the leader file? Both sides do have a point - on the one hand, it is hard to imagine that none of the famous historical leaders from Germany would have served a unified Germany, but on the other, it is also right in that we should keep Germany at least to some extent balanced and challenging (for example it would imo be quite conceivable that Germany is united in a MP game, where it would be rather far from certain victory), that a leader file that includes all German leaders would be too big and very unrealistic, that we should avoid "province-hunting" for leaders and that we should keep things simple if possible.
IMO distribution of leaders needs to take into account several factors:
- who founded Germany
- Germany's religion
- by which way Germany was founded
- which countries have joined Germany voluntarily
- balance considerations, i.e. on the one hand avoiding to "spam" Germany's leader file, on the other hand providing it with solid coverage and a leader file comparable to other great powers
- considerations of "historical realism"
Let's, for starters, have a look at which leaders we got in the German states' files, and whether and under which circumstances these would have served Germany. First, the (badly in need of rework) Hapsburg file, leaving out the (afaik) made up ones:
Maximilian (monarch), 1493-1519, 4-3-3-0
Frundsberg, 1499 - 1528, 3-3-5-2
Mercy, 1610 - 1637, 3-4-3-0
Wallenstein, 1615 - 1634, 4-4-4-1 (a joke)
Pappenheim, 1618 - 1632, 3-3-4-1
Hatzfeldt, 1624 - 1647, 4-3-3-0
Gallas, 1625 - 1645, 2-3-3-0
Piccolomini, 1627 - 1648, 4-4-3-1
Montecuccoli, 1630 - 1680, 4-4-4-1
Werth, 1635 - 1649, 4-2-4-0
Götz, 1637-1645,2-2-2-0
Waldeck, 1670 - 1700, 3-3-2-1
Karl V von Lothringen, 1675 - 1690, 4-3-3-0
Starhemberg, 1685 - 1705, 4-3-4-2
Prinz Eugen, 1685 - 1730, 5-5-5-1
Ludwig von Baden, 1690-1710,4-3-4-0
Mercy, 1690 - 1734, 3-3-4-0
Traun, 1697 - 1748, 4-3-4-0
Lobkowitz, 1725-1750, 2-3-2-2
Seckendorf, 1726-1739, 2-3-3-0
Neipperg, 1730-1745, 4-3-4-0
Bathyany, 1730-1750, 3-2-3-0
Khevenhuller, 1734-1744, 4-4-3-0
Daun, 1734-1766, 4-5-4-1
Karl von Lothringen, 1737-1757, 3-2-2-0
Browne, 1738-1757, 3-3-3-1
Laudon, 1741-1789, 5-4-5-0
Lacy, 1743-1789, 4-4-4-0
Nadasy, 1760-1785, 4-2-3-0
Alvintzy, 1780-1810, 3-3-3-0
Coburg-Sachsen, 1785-1796, 3-3-3-0
Mack, 1785-1828, 2-3-3-0
Wurmser, 1789-1797, 3-2-2-0
Erzherzog Karl, 1792-1840, 4-5-4-1
Melas, 1799-1803, 4-3-3-1
Erzherzog Johann, 1800-1859, 2-2-2-0
Schwarzenberg, 1805-1817, 4-3-4-0
1. The first interesting thing about the HAB leaders is that some of them quite obviously served the Hapsburgs because they were Kings of Bohemia (Wallenstein, Lobkowitz and Schwarzenberg) and of Hungary (Bathyany, Nadasy, Alvintzy, Melas). These should certainly not be available to another state founding Germany. Whether we want a Germany founded by Austria to get these leaders depends on whether we want such a Germany to inherit Bohemia and Hungary. Leaving aside arguments on whether that would be realistic or not, I think there is no need to give a united Germany unnecessary freebies. Therefore even a Germany founded by Austria should neither inherit Bohemia and Hungary nor get these leaders (which already excludes one very good and two good leaders).
2. The two Dukes of Lorraine should, at least for the purposes of the German leader file, be considered leaders for LOR, which means that they are out of the HAB leaders for Germany list.
3. The "foreign" leaders - the Italians Gallas, Piccolomini, Montecuccoli, the Livonian Laudon, the Irishmen Lacy and Browne and the Frenchman (well, actually Alsatian, but at that time Alsace was French and he started his career in the French army) Wurmser - should not be available to a Germany founded by anybody else than Austria. Whether "Austrian" Germany should get them or not is a tough question. I think they don't need them, and things will be more simple this way, but I'd like opinions on this; if we decide not to give the Italians to Hapsburg Germany, Montecuccoli should be awakened for PAR. Btw, the Savoyard Eugene and the two Mercys (who were from Lorraine) should not be considered "foreign" for this matter since Savoy and Lorraine are part of the KoG.
4. Hapsburg Germany should thus get all following leaders:
Maximilian (monarch), 1493-1519, 4-3-3-0
Frundsberg, 1499 - 1528, 3-3-5-2
Mercy, 1610 - 1637, 3-4-3-0
Pappenheim, 1618 - 1632, 3-3-4-1
Hatzfeldt, 1624 - 1647, 4-3-3-0
Werth, 1635 - 1649, 4-2-4-0
Götz, 1637-1645,2-2-2-0
Waldeck, 1670 - 1700, 3-3-2-1
Starhemberg, 1685 - 1705, 4-3-4-2
Prinz Eugen, 1685 - 1730, 5-5-5-1
Ludwig von Baden, 1690-1710,4-3-4-0
Mercy, 1690 - 1734, 3-3-4-0
Traun, 1697 - 1748, 4-3-4-0
Seckendorf, 1726-1739, 2-3-3-0
Neipperg, 1730-1745, 4-3-4-0
Khevenhüller, 1734-1744, 4-4-3-0
Daun, 1734-1766, 4-5-4-1
Coburg-Sachsen, 1785-1796, 3-3-3-0
Mack, 1785-1828, 2-3-3-0
Erzherzog Karl, 1792-1840, 4-5-4-1
Erzherzog Johann, 1800-1859, 2-2-2-0
5. Now the real issue is what to do if Germany has not been founded by Austria. What we need to keep in mind is that in this case the Hapsburgs could still very well be Kings of Bohemia and Hungary; in fact there is not much of a reason why they would not have gotten at least one of these crowns in 1526 then. The Hapsburgs among their leaders - Maximilian, Erzherzog Karl and Erzherzog Johann - should for this reason not be available to a non-Hapsburg Germany. Among the remaining ones, it might be wise to differenciate between those who served Austria because it was their "native country" - Starhemberg, Traun, Khevenhüller, Daun, Mack, - those who served the Hapsburgs because they were Emperor - Frundsberg and Ludwig von Baden -, and the rest, originally from other parts of Germany, who were in Hapsburg service because of coincidence, opportunity and other factors. The reason for the distinction is quite simple: the two "Imperial" leaders are always active as leaders for Germany and slept as Austrian leaders if Germany is created; the "native" Austrian leaders (I know that this is a terrible simplification, and that most of these guys did not really serve the Hapsburgs just because they were from Hapsburg lands, but at least it is a category that can be justified in some way) can be gained by non-Hapsburg Germany under certain conditions (for example if Austria agrees to the Imperial reform); the rest is only available to Hapsburg Germany - we might want to consider also awaking them if their "native" country founds Germany, though that would make things quite complicated. If we'd do that, their original countries would be:
Pappenheim: Franconia (i.e., if anything, the Palatinate)
Hatzfeldt: Hesse
Werth: Berg
Götz: Hanover
Waldeck: Hesse
Prinz Eugen: Savoy
Seckendorf: Franconia (i.e. the Palatinate)
Neipperg: Wirtemberg
Coburg-Sachsen: Saxony
The plan is to include at least one way towards unification of Germany in the next release, 1.37, which is supposed to be released on March 1st. Don't count on it, thoughI Killed Kenny said:
Last edited:
Next, the second most important list, the leaders of Brandenburg-Prussia:
Friedrich Wilhelm I (monarch), 1640-1688, 3-3-4-1
Derfflinger, 1654-1695, 3-4-3-1
Anhalt-Dessau, 1695-1745, 4-5-5-1
Wartensleben, 1700-1710, 3-3-3-0
Schwerin, 1720-1757, 5-4-5-0
Friedrich II der Große, 1740-1786, 6-6-6-1
Zieten, 1740-1786, 4-2-4-0
Prinz Heinrich, 1750-1786, 4-4-5-0
Bevern, 1750-1781, 3-3-3-0
Seydlitz, 1752-1773, 4-1-6-0
Hohenlohe, 1786-1806, 1-2-3-0
Braunschweig, 1787-1794, 3-4-3-0
Blücher, 1787-1819, 3-5-4-1
Tauentzien, 1806-1824, 3-3-3-2
Bülow, 1808-1816, 3-4-4-0
Kleist, 1808-1823, 3-3-3-0
Yorck, 1811-1830, 4-3-3-0
1. Hohenzollern Germany should get all these leaders except (perhaps) Schwerin, whom we might want to tie to Mecklenburg for the purposes of the German leader file, and Ferdinand von Braunschweig, who should be with Hanover's leader contingent.
2. For non-Hohenzollern Germany we need to remember that if Brandenburg had been part of a unified (or centralized) Germany, the Hohenzollern would still have been rulers of the Duchy of Prussia, which was not part of Germany. Therefore non-Hohenzollern Germany shouldn't be able to get Friedrich Wilhelm I, Frederick the Great and Prince Heinrich.
3. With the others, there again needs to be a differenciation between those who had at least some kind of allegiance to Prussia due to their origin and those who served it "coincidentally". I would consider the following part of the first group:
- Anhalt-Dessau (the princes of Anhalt-Dessau had a long tradition of serving Brandenburg-Prussia)
- Zieten (was from Wustrau in Brandenburg)
- Seydlitz (from a family of Prussian officers, born in Cleves)
- Tauentzien (born in Potsdam)
- Bülow (from the Altmark)
- Kleist (born in Berlin, the Kleists were the biggest Prussian officer family)
- Yorck (born in Potsdam, though his family was originally English, his father already was a Prussian officer)
These seven would be available to non-Hohenzollern Germany. Blücher was from Mecklenburg and should, like Schwerin, be part of Mecklenburg's leader "contingent" within the German file.
Friedrich Wilhelm I (monarch), 1640-1688, 3-3-4-1
Derfflinger, 1654-1695, 3-4-3-1
Anhalt-Dessau, 1695-1745, 4-5-5-1
Wartensleben, 1700-1710, 3-3-3-0
Schwerin, 1720-1757, 5-4-5-0
Friedrich II der Große, 1740-1786, 6-6-6-1
Zieten, 1740-1786, 4-2-4-0
Prinz Heinrich, 1750-1786, 4-4-5-0
Bevern, 1750-1781, 3-3-3-0
Seydlitz, 1752-1773, 4-1-6-0
Hohenlohe, 1786-1806, 1-2-3-0
Braunschweig, 1787-1794, 3-4-3-0
Blücher, 1787-1819, 3-5-4-1
Tauentzien, 1806-1824, 3-3-3-2
Bülow, 1808-1816, 3-4-4-0
Kleist, 1808-1823, 3-3-3-0
Yorck, 1811-1830, 4-3-3-0
1. Hohenzollern Germany should get all these leaders except (perhaps) Schwerin, whom we might want to tie to Mecklenburg for the purposes of the German leader file, and Ferdinand von Braunschweig, who should be with Hanover's leader contingent.
2. For non-Hohenzollern Germany we need to remember that if Brandenburg had been part of a unified (or centralized) Germany, the Hohenzollern would still have been rulers of the Duchy of Prussia, which was not part of Germany. Therefore non-Hohenzollern Germany shouldn't be able to get Friedrich Wilhelm I, Frederick the Great and Prince Heinrich.
3. With the others, there again needs to be a differenciation between those who had at least some kind of allegiance to Prussia due to their origin and those who served it "coincidentally". I would consider the following part of the first group:
- Anhalt-Dessau (the princes of Anhalt-Dessau had a long tradition of serving Brandenburg-Prussia)
- Zieten (was from Wustrau in Brandenburg)
- Seydlitz (from a family of Prussian officers, born in Cleves)
- Tauentzien (born in Potsdam)
- Bülow (from the Altmark)
- Kleist (born in Berlin, the Kleists were the biggest Prussian officer family)
- Yorck (born in Potsdam, though his family was originally English, his father already was a Prussian officer)
These seven would be available to non-Hohenzollern Germany. Blücher was from Mecklenburg and should, like Schwerin, be part of Mecklenburg's leader "contingent" within the German file.
Simply throw the inheritance sequences away would not be logical for there is no reason why a Habsburg Emperor would not get authority over Bohemia. It would even be reasonable if Bohemia is included in the reform sequence (if not already done) because the sequence handles the reformation of the Holy Roman Empire and not only Germany.
Bohemia could be handled by it's reaction event. It would reject Imperial authority and Germany/HRE would gain claims on it and perhaps an event to make the conquest of Bohemia easier. It would also give a reason to take the inheritance event away from a Habsburg HRE.
Concerning Hungary there are several options to handle it: 1st struggles within the Habsburg Dynasty
2nd Ferdinand gets Hungary via a dynastic treaty giving Ferdinand the Hungarian Lands + some autonomy which increases gradualy as he is trying to become fully independant.
3rd Hungarians reject Habsburg claims (which are still active) and ally themselve with another European Power (perhaps Poland)
Last edited:
Nope. It handles a larger and more successful version of the historical Imperial reform that was restricted to just the Kingdom of Germany .Ar-Pharazôn[GE] said:
Bohemia and Helvetia did not reject Imperial authority at the time of the Imperial reform. Even after their victory in the Swabian war, the Swiss continued to adress Emperor Maximilian as their overlord. The Imperial reform did not include them due to their special legal status - just like it initially did not include the holdings of the electors and the Hapsburg archdukes.
For what reason would that be necessary?
1. There wouldn't need to be a dynastic treaty, since the only Hapsburg family member with a claim to the Hungarian and Bohemian thrones was Ferdinand, through his marriage with Anna of Hungary and the treaty between Hapsburgs and Jagellons of 1515
2. If Ferdinand is elected King of Hungary - in 1526, when his brother is supposed to be Emperor -, he is a fully sovereign ruler and would not need to be granted autonomy or struggle for it
Leaving that aside, there are solid reasons to assume that the Jagellons would never have agreed to the treaty of 1515, that was the base for an undeniable Hapsburg claim on the thrones of Bohemia and Hungary (there were older claims of the Hapsburgs that were however at least to some extent questionable), had they been afraid of the immense power of a Germany united under Hapsburg rule. Therefore it is quite conceivable that in this case, Janos Zapolya would have been uncontested as King of Hungary and that Bohemia would have elected somebody else than Ferdinand - be it one of the Wittelsbach candidates, be it a Jagellon, be it Francois of France (who did make his bid for the Bohemian throne historically), be it one of the national candidates like Leo of Rozmital.
There are many sites and books where it is possible to find information about the so called "Reichsreform" It was a reform of the whole Empire although it hat almost no effect in Italy. An important hint is the adjective "Imperial". Germany was no Empire so any reform for Germany would not have gained this adjective but the adjective "royal". In theory it was not restricted to Germany but in fact the Emperor did not have the power to extend it to Italy. Also you should notice that "Reich" was not Germany but the Holy Roman Empire.
If it would have been only a reform of Germany ther would not have been seven Electors included in the Imperial Executive Council because Bohemia was not part of the Kingdom of Germany but a part of the HRE and the King of Bohemia was still an Elector of the Empire.
I never said that Bohemia has rejected Imperial authority in real life but if you want to take the Bohemian inheritance away from the Habsburgs you will have to give a reason and Bohemian resistance against the Emperor due to his reform would be that reason.
: I
It would be necessary because Charles V. would never have accepted an fully independant Habsburg Hungary when he has still the power to prevent this (almost sure when he is HRE and King of Spain), mostly because he strongly believed in the ideal of supreme Imperial authority. Also the fact that Ferdinand (although King of Hungary) is still member of the Habsburg Dynasty requires some legal foundation to clarify how the relation betwen these two branches will be.
Probably they would have been more afraid of the Ottoman Empire so they would have choosen a canditate strong enough to protect them. Obvious choices in this altered timeline where we have a strong HRE are still Habsburg HRE and (if the Hungarians do not want to ally/unite with the Empire) Poland. France would be not in a suitable position to fight the Ottomans mostly because of their geographic position (Holy Roman monster at their border). Now what would you think would be the Empire's reaction if Poland which was very powerfull in this period gained influence over Hungary ? The Emperor would have done everything to prevent it. Would Hungary risk a war with the Emperor when the turks are knocking on the door ? Only when France jumps in and allies with Poland and Hungary against the HRE. How probable is such a great alliance when they were not able to prevent the reformation of the HRE ?
The Ottoman juggernaut would be a reason for Ferdinand to seek protection from his older and more powerfull brother which he would only get in exchange for some kind of submission.
Last edited:
And still, Bohemia and Helvetia were never included in an Imperial circle. Since the reform was all about the establishment of Imperial circles - the other new things, like the Common Penny or the judicial power of the Imperial Chamber Court, were to be enforced by the circles. Therefore an area not included in an Imperial circle was not affected by the Imperial reform.Ar-Pharazôn[GE] said:
He was an elector in theory, but in fact the electoral privilegues of Bohemia were reduced and its electoral vote hardly ever used since the reign of Vaclav IV until 1708.
from http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm#Electors:
http://www.wasa.uk.net/history/factsheet/HRE/constitution.html
And I was trying to say that Bohemia wouldn't need to reject anything, since the Imperial reform could, at least initially, not extend to Bohemia.Ar-Pharazôn[GE] said:
Err, can you specify why not? Hungary was never ever part of the Holy Roman Empire, and never ever ruled by Charles V. He was Emperor and King of Spain, and still allowed his brother Ferdinand to be a completely independent King of Hungary.
Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, Bohemia and Hungary had Jagellon, i.e. Polish, kings until 1526 (Bohemia since 1471, Hungary since 1490).
Bohemia did not really have to worry about the Ottomans; so few did the Bohemians care for the Ottoman threat that they did not even contemplate sending their king Louis an army for his campaign against the Ottomans that ended with his death at Mohacs.
1.
The HRE was (in theory) universal and the Emperor claimed supreme authority over christian Europe. Additionaly Charles strongly believed in this medieval ideal of the universal HRE.
2.
The Ottoman juggernaut would be a reason for Ferdinand to seek protection from his older and more powerfull brother which he would only get in exchange for some kind of submission.
I talk about a closer union between Hungary and another European Monarchy.
If you think the Hungarian's won't choose another Polish King after Mohacs because they sucked in defending Hungary this leaves only the Habsburg Dynasty as potential ally.
It was not all about the Imperial circles. They were one point among others. Show me some information which supports your opinion and I will believe you.
I repeat:
read this carefully it is a part of the Reichsreform and it clearly states that Bohemia was included. Important is the Number SEVEN which makes clear that every Elector is included. Even if Bohemia practicaly did not use the Imperial Executive Council as a tool to limit the Emperor's power it was theorethicaly included and in the this altered timeline we assume that the Emperor's position is strong enought to extend the reforms not only theoreticaly to Bohemia. This reform was clearly a reform of the Empire and not only of Germany the only reason why it has little influence outside of Germany was the Emperor's lack of power and authority.
Fazit: Bohemia has to be included into the grand sequence of reforming the Empire. Even if the King of Bohemia does not resist initialy the Emperor will surely try to extend his power to Bohemia as soon as he has gathered enough strength.
Last edited:
Charles firmly believed in the statu quo, and the unity of Christendom against the Turks. But he never sougth to enforce his authority upon non-HRE rules. In fact, he opposed France only because of France's aggressivity in Italy.Ar-Pharazôn[GE] said:
For him, it was more important to keep everything the way it was.
By 1519 the HRE was universal no-more. Don't forget the HRE was a part of Charlemagne's Empire : only lands once owned by him (and not even all) were part of the HRE.
There were no submission between the two of them. Hungary has always been outside of the HRE, and it even was a very important point for them, under the Hapsburgs.Ar-Pharazôn[GE] said:
How ? Prove your point, show that reforms were enforced.Ar-Pharazôn[GE] said:
Like Twoflower says : it was a point, but all others were to be implemented through circles, not separately from them.Ar-Pharazôn[GE] said:
The HRE was not a part of Charlemagne's Empire it was a different political entity although HRE Emperor's claimed to be heirs Charlemagne. The crucial point is that Charlemagne was crowned as Emperor by the Pope thus claiming supreme authority over christian Europe (again in theory). His hiers continued to do so and Otto II even claimed the Imperii renovatio the recreation of the antique Roman Empire.
HRE = Holy Roman Empire It is in THEORY universal even in 1519
So the Spanish Expansion in South America was his way to keep the status quo ? ... The main reasons why there was little/no expansion of the HRE was it's internal problems not Charles political vision and ideals.
Imagine the situation wher Charles is Emperor of HRE and King of Spain and Ferdinand is King of Hungary. The Turks are threatening him and he has to choose how to defend against them. Now how could Ferdinand hold his possessions ? By seeking support. The obvious choice would be his big brother Charles. But I am sure that Charles would demand some kind of submission in exchange for military help. I do not talk about integration of Hungary into HRE but a clear relation between the German-Spanish and the Hungarian branch of the Habsburg Dynasty which means German-Spanish line dominates Hungarian line.
already deleted
Still this leaves the adjective "Imperial" which is clearly indicating that the reform is a reform of the Structure of the Empire and the fact the the Imperial Executive Council ("Reichsregiment") was also a part of the Reichsreform. + One of the Imperial Circles was the Circle of Burgundy which is a seperate Kingdom and just like Bohemia no part of the Kingdom of Germany (HRE = Kingdom of Germany + Kingdom of Italy + Kingdom of Burgundy + Kingdom of Bohemia which had a special status within the Empire)
Last edited:
Twoflower said:That should do
So is there a possibility for compromise regarding the leader file? Both sides do have a point - on the one hand, it is hard to imagine that none of the famous historical leaders from Germany would have served a unified Germany, but on the other, it is also right in that we should keep Germany at least to some extent balanced and challenging (for example it would imo be quite conceivable that Germany is united in a MP game, where it would be rather far from certain victory), that a leader file that includes all German leaders would be too big and very unrealistic, that we should avoid "province-hunting" for leaders and that we should keep things simple if
snip
1. The first interesting thing about the HAB leaders is that some of them quite obviously served the Hapsburgs because they were Kings of Bohemia (Wallenstein, Lobkowitz and Schwarzenberg) and of Hungary (Bathyany, Nadasy, Alvintzy, Melas). These should certainly not be available to another state founding Germany. Whether we want a Germany founded by Austria to get these leaders depends on whether we want such a Germany to inherit Bohemia and Hungary. Leaving aside arguments on whether that would be realistic or not, I think there is no need to give a united Germany unnecessary freebies. Therefore even a Germany founded by Austria should neither inherit Bohemia and Hungary nor get these leaders (which already excludes one very good and two good leaders).
2. The two Dukes of Lorraine should, at least for the purposes of the German leader file, be considered leaders for LOR, which means that they are out of the HAB leaders for Germany list.
snip
A couple of small points. If it is an HRE formation of Germany there is no reason to exclude Bohemia. That would be a bit odd, divesting your country from a "founding" member.
And Hungary kind of solves itself. If the Habs form GER and are still the heirs to Hungary, which marriage and biology will still make likely since it is a fools errand to go to far into "butterfly" affect speculations. They would just become a vassal, would that mean that some of the Hungarian nobles/generals would serve in the Imperial army? Maybe. But I would be willing to say that it would probably be best to leave them in charge of their Kings Hungarian forces.
I understand the desire to keep a game balanced. I think that the major balancing will be done not by clipping Germanys military potential overly much. Since it is going to be a challenge to keep the country together in the first place. If she stays together long term she is going to be a major and fantastically ugly thing to deal with for every nation on the continent.
And that is just the way of things. If Germany had been a truly cohesive and unified nation in the 1500's... There are going to be some problems for France unless she is unified. There is a case that could be made that France had the chance to grow to power because they did not have a unified foe on her borders. Well, England, yes, but they are across a patch of sea and have...problems. Spain had the moors to deal with, Germany was a patch work of princes that could be played against each other and same goes to a degree with Italy.
A Germany that unifys fairly early is going to be a problem for France which makes France all the more challenging to play...
EDIT:
Sorry posted my reply before I read some of the other following posts.
I understand your point on the imperial circles. The empire was trying to orginize the smaller states that were outside of another polity. I viewed it as them trying to form provinces of the empire and the electors and Bohemia were already big enough or prestigious enough to qualify on their own.
And I see no problem with Hungary having a similar relationship to the German branch of the family as the Two Sicilies branch had to their Spanish cousins. IIRC are they not considered a vassal of Spain in the game? Seems a bit unfair to Hungary but it would prevent the two branches of the family from trying to kill each other for a bit...
Last edited:
The New World is the New World, Europe is Europe. The search for statu quo was for Europe, christian Europe in fact. His dream was a crusade, and France prevented him by its aggressivity, but Charles/Karl/Carlos only ever sought statu quo between christian princes. Look at the various peace treaties !Ar-Pharazôn[GE] said:
Sure, Ferdinand would have asked, and been granted, support, but not in exchange of submission, as he spoke about the war against the Turks as soon as the Imperial Election.Ar-Pharazôn[GE] said:
It is not how Karl view the HRE.
I suggest you to read Henry Bogdan, Joseph Pérez, Otto of Hapsburg, Chaunu, Sallman or Brandi, for some.
A reform may be general, and named general, but only affect some significant parts of the territory. It was very common in all non-homogenous countries, and still is. Those are words, only words, and you should focus on facts.Ar-Pharazôn[GE] said: