AGC-EEP Ottoman Empire & Asia Minor

[Toio]

below is the event I was using, other one was a draft for changes :rofl:

got confused with the many times that event 23010 fired with action a causing Morea to inherit hellas in 1435 and stuff up the event below. which is one reason I used trigger of neighbour.

plus , norrefeldt commented on the re-vassalation at this late stage (1446) was bad

#(1446) Morean future
event = {
id = 286000
trigger = {
neighbour = TUR
Not = {
vassal = { country = TUR country = SPR }
}
}
random = no
country = SPR
name = "EVENTNAME286000" #Morean Future
desc = "EVENTHIST286000"
#-#

date = { month = august year = 1446 }
offset = 100
deathdate = { month = may year = 1460 }

action_a ={ # Disperse our people #
name = "Harsh Ottoman policy"
command = { type = population which = 360 value = -1000 }
command = { type = provincemanpower which = 360 value = -1 }
command = { type = cash value = -100 }
}
action_b ={ # Let us side with the turk #
name = "Relaxed Ottoman policy"
command = { type = DIP which = 2 value = 36 }
command = { type = relation which = TUR value = 50 }
command = { type = provincetax which = 360 value = 1 }
command = { type = dynastic which = TUR }
}
}


EVENTNAME286000;The Morean future;;;;;;;;;;
EVENTHIST286000;The Peloponnesus was misgoverned by two brothers, Thomas and Constantine, worthless and greedy despots, whose rule of their oppression, were detested throughout the land, further hatred developed between the Greek inhabitants and the migrant Albanian shepherds, who had come down and settled here in the previous century. The invasion of the Turks in early 1446 had desolated the land and given the Albanian herdsmen a wider range, forcing the Greek peasants to overcrowd the many Venetian towns. Albanians received favourable terms, for it was Ottoman policy to preserve them as a make-weight to the Greeks. In Morea 60000 peasants were reduced to slavery. It was thus that the Morea became perhaps the most miserable province in the balkans, nor can there be any doubt but that Mohammad deliberately intended this to be its fate. He unpeopled and desolated it so that it might present no allurements to a foreign invader and have no spirit to be restless.;;;;;;;;;;
ACTIONNAME286000A;Disperse our people;;;;;;;;;;
ACTIONNAME286000B;Let us side with the turk;;;;;;;;;;

 

[Toio]

any comments on vassal, suzerainy and tribute ??

for me they mean historically the same thing for the EU2 game, that is a vassal

 

[unmerged(54293)]

As I already said, there are also reasons why Morea could be a vassal of the Byzantine Empire in the beginning. I guess one can see it either way - the game engine is just not very apt in simulating this various forms of dependency.

 

[Toio]

As I already said, there are also reasons why Morea could be a vassal of the Byzantine Empire in the beginning. I guess one can see it either way - the game engine is just not very apt in simulating this various forms of dependency.

Well my book arrived
title -The late medieval Balkans
by - John V. A. fine
publisher - michigan
(university of michigan press)
pages 683
Get it

it states that in 1394 at a meeting in Serres, the ottomans called all their vassaled states (suzerainy) together. they where
BYZ
morea
thessally

As early as that, they where a vassal

athens was 1407


there was no vassalation of morea under BYZ, just because they had relatives in morea does not mean a vassalation. If you think in this term , then trebizon was also "related" to BYZ, would they be vassaled as well?

If for gameplay , your scenario is better , then let me know, but I have tried various "historic" combinations and what we have works best to a degree, EXCEPT for the knights after the split of there alliance with cyprus.

rulers (despots) of morea from book
1407 -1443 = Theodore II
1443 - 1449 = Constantine and Thomas
1449 - 1460 = Thomas and Demetrius

any other rulers , I have as well, Zeta, Epirus etc etc

 

[unmerged(36449)]

well, in australia, the states cannot have armed forces , but have their own police force.

So, the conclusion is that suzerainity in the times of the OE was based on:
nation A will pay a tribute to OE yearly
nation A has their own armed forces
nation A can ally with whoever they want
nation A cannot attack a nation which also pays a tribute to the OE.
nation A will not attack an alliance member of OE

these are simplified rules which was used by the OE for its "vassals".

case in question is:
morea was vassal of OE, athens was vassal of OE in 1444
morea attacked athens and forced athens to pay a tribute to morea.
On loss of tribute from athens by morea, OE invaded morea and placed morea back on its suzerainty plus with a "lesson" with losses of 60000 morean slaves and 20000 morean dead.

conclusion is that suzerainity is a form of vassalation for us in the EU2 game.

But they can't ally with whomever they wish, vassalization in the game precludes that. The case of the Morea/ Athens dust up could be handled by revolts to simulate the warfare between the two provinces.

 

[unmerged(54293)]

there was no vassalation of morea under BYZ, just because they had relatives in morea does not mean a vassalation.

Yes, you are correct. Morea was certainly no vassal, but an appanage of the Byzantine Empire. Or, to be more precise, it was a very independently acting entity, but still regarded as a part of the Empire. It was more than just related to Byzantine, as the Emperor quite often deposed and created despots, even in the 1440s.

If for gameplay , your scenario is better , then let me know, but I have tried various "historic" combinations and what we have works best to a degree, EXCEPT for the knights after the split of there alliance with cyprus.

I have to admit I only tested it playing Byzantium myself. At the beginning I was outraged I had a hard time vassalizing Morea, whereas I knew from history that many regarded Morea (formally) being even part of the Empire. So a vassalisation from the beginning makes times a bit easier for BYZ. However, I have not tested what will happen if only the AI is involved.

Perhaps one of the infamous double vassalisations should be introduced. But as I remarked, the engine is just not suited to simulate the various degrees of dependency.

 

[Toio]

this event below needs changing, the casusbelli on VEN is too lnog , it should be 10 years. early war by OE against VEN is bad

#(1421) The Conquests of Murad II
#by Chegitz Guevara
event = {
id = 301001
random = no
country = TUR
name = "EVENTNAME301001" #The Conquests of Murad II
desc = "EVENTHIST301001"
#-#During the reign of Murad II, Serbia and Bosnia were conquered briefly and the Ottomans attempted to conquer Albania.

date = { day = 26 month = may year = 1421 }

action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME301001A" #I will restore the Empire
command = { type = addcore which = 361 } #Albania
command = { type = addcore which = 364 } #Bosnia
command = { type = casusbelli which = HUN value = 360 }
command = { type = casusbelli which = VEN value = 120 }
#command = { type = AI which = TUR_MuradII.ai }
}
}

yellow was 360 should be 120

 

[Toio]

But they can't ally with whomever they wish, vassalization in the game precludes that. The case of the Morea/ Athens dust up could be handled by revolts to simulate the warfare between the two provinces.

what I am asking , is vassal , suzerain and tribute equal the same thing for EU2, if not , then
vassal means to supply troops to your leige, = cannot be done in EU2
suzerain means only paying tribute and not warring other suzerain nation under that same leige
tribute means to offer money only basically, sort of protection money.

OE had no vassal only suzerain
VEN had no vassals only suzerain or tributes

which system do we apply, I do not like the comment, they only paid tribute or suzerain is not a vassal. If this is the case.

remove all vassals for VEN and OE for starters and we can look at the rest.

I do not know what the issue is in saying, they all mean the same thing in EU2

 

[Toio]

Yes, you are correct. Morea was certainly no vassal, but an appanage of the Byzantine Empire. Or, to be more precise, it was a very independently acting entity, but still regarded as a part of the Empire. It was more than just related to Byzantine, as the Emperor quite often deposed and created despots, even in the 1440s.

a Suzerain then of the BYZ, giving money but not alliance or troops ?? is this it??




I have to admit I only tested it playing Byzantium myself. At the beginning I was outraged I had a hard time vassalizing Morea, whereas I knew from history that many regarded Morea (formally) being even part of the Empire. So a vassalisation from the beginning makes times a bit easier for BYZ. However, I have not tested what will happen if only the AI is involved.

Perhaps one of the infamous double vassalisations should be introduced. But as I remarked, the engine is just not suited to simulate the various degrees of dependency.

Originally it was like this in earlier versions. problem was morea fell before BYZ or morea and BYZ (with knights) took out OE. modders did not like this.

see earlier posts on the change. I just think it is unhistorical for morea to be a vassal considering that they paid a tribute to the OE , seeked alliance with the knights, fought northern morea (achaea) had no control of western morea (under the mani) and basically did what they pleased. fought VEN in firat trying to reclaim there towns and secondly in selling to VEN more coastal towns

 

[Toio]

correct

# Despots of Morea #

# Emperors

historicalmonarch = {
id = { type = 6 id = 0128000 }
name = "Theodore II"
startdate = { year = 1407 }
deathdate = {
day = 21
month = july
year = 1443
}
DIP = 5
ADM = 3
MIL = 1
dormant = no
remark = "Lived in seclusion as a monk."
}
historicalmonarch = {
id = { type = 6 id = 0128001 }
name = "Konstantinos I" #constantine XI
startdate = {
day = 21
month = july
year = 1443
}
deathdate = {
day = 29
month = may
year = 1449
}
DIP = 5
ADM = 7
MIL = 8
dormant = no
}

historicalmonarch = {
id = { type = 6 id = 0128002 }
name = "Thomas Palaeologus"
startdate = {
day = 29
month = may
year = 1449
}
deathdate = {
year = 1470
}
DIP = 3
ADM = 4
MIL = 3
dormant = no
}


if you want a mixture of southern morea (above with northern morea (achaea)

then
1402 -1432 Centurione Zaccaria is to be added
i do not mind

 

[unmerged(54293)]

I just think it is unhistorical for morea to be a vassal considering that they paid a tribute to the OE , seeked alliance with the knights, fought northern morea (achaea) had no control of western morea (under the mani) and basically did what they pleased.

Ok, then.

But I still sustain that the close dynastical relationship between Byzantium and Morea has to be reflected somehow. So, what about the idea to at least introduce a royal marriage between the two? And I would even propose to make it last until 1453, to which point both lands were ruled by the same dynasty historically.

Second, I'd suggest to replace "Theodore II" with "Theodoros II", his original Greek name.

 

[aylo1]

...I'd suggest to replace "Theodore II" with "Theodoros II", his original Greek name.

I second this, but what about the division of Morea btwn Theodoros II, Konstantinos Dragases, Thomas & Demetrios Palaiologos throughout the XV century??

I'll post a monarchlist when I next log on through my PC (where all my EU2 stuff is)

Also what about more events eg) revolts of Manouel 'Ghin' Kantakouzenos & Giovanni Asano-Zaccaria, Konstantinos's campaign against Athens in 1444 & maybe a corresponding event for the CYP event where Jacques II tries to woo Zoe-Sophia Palaiologina for a wife?

 

[Toio]

Ok, then.

But I still sustain that the close dynastical relationship between Byzantium and Morea has to be reflected somehow. So, what about the idea to at least introduce a royal marriage between the two? And I would even propose to make it last until 1453, to which point both lands were ruled by the same dynasty historically.

Second, I'd suggest to replace "Theodore II" with "Theodoros II", his original Greek name.

is not an alliance enough??

Theodoros II is OK

 

[Toio]

I second this, but what about the division of Morea btwn Theodoros II, Konstantinos Dragases, Thomas & Demetrios Palaiologos throughout the XV century??

who is dragas ??
and i have Thomas, do you need 2 moarchs for the same state at the same time??

Also what about more events eg) revolts of Manouel 'Ghin' Kantakouzenos

Was this the revolt led my an ex Greek to liberate the Morea for Albania, he led the Albanians living in the morea IRC, if so it was knock back already as I tried to submit it.

& Giovanni Asano-Zaccaria,

bastard son of Centurione Zaccaria, imprisoned by Thomas for earlier revolt against morea, support by a Greek named Nicephorus Loukanis who wanted to form the first Greek government since the ancient times.
my opinion , not worth the effort

Konstantinos's campaign against Athens in 1444

like to see this event, maybe with only a casusbelli of morea against athens, will make for some interesting developments if morea take athens.

 

[sabular]

is not an alliance enough??

wouldn't that mean that a DOW on the byzantines will put the OE at war with morea, just what you have been trying to avoid?

 

[Toio]

wouldn't that mean that a DOW on the byzantines will put the OE at war with morea, just what you have been trying to avoid?

yes, but he said he could not vassal them (regardless of what he tried|) to annex them, thats what the issue was for me

 

[sabular]

yes, but he said he could not vassal them (regardless of what he tried|) to annex them, thats what the issue was for me

I dont know if I understand correctly but are you now saying that your main point was preventing BYZ from diploannexing morea?

 

[unmerged(54293)]

sabular got it right, this alliance is rather a pain in the ass. If no human is involved, Morea is very likely to be toast as soon as Byzantium is DOWed by the Ottomans. If you play Byzantium yourself, you'll always have to help Morea out.

That's why I'd prefer a vassalage (already rejected) or a lasting royal marriage between Byzantium and Morea to simulate their close bonds. On the other hand, both will have to be in some alliance at the beginning to avoid completely unhistorical alliances...

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Yes, this is a real problem early in game because OE has military access through Duchy of Athens. Morea has no chance to survive against OE armies by land. It could be more difficult for OE with no military access because of no sufficient navy at this time (and it helps Order of St John surviving a lot) but is it historical to remove this military access?

 

[Toio]

lets sort this out

I wanted morea to be a vassal of OE as it was historically, to prevent a war with OE and I then wanted a renewed vassalation in 1446 (which norrefeldt), noted was to close to 1460 (death date for morea) and would cause BB for OE. or other issues.

Tudor said he cannot gain Morea as a vassal, which I stated should be the case , as a vassal will lead to an annexion of morea by BYZ and hence give the OE much longer time in conquering BYZ.
I stated that historically Morea was never a vassal of BYZ , but was independent.

to confirm, if we go historical , which I prefer and aiming for , then,
Morea and Athens would be OE vassals.

the only issue with this is that some modders say athens was not a vassal of OE.
the alternatives are
-yes for athens to be a vassal of TOS
-no for athens to be a vassal of VEN
-athens to be independent and only give OE access through their lands.

on Morea
-Vassal of OE
or
-vassal of VEN as they paid a tribute

or
alliance with kinights as per year 1404, as the knights are a headache after 1428.

BUT we need to avoid a BYZ annexation of Morea to avoid problems for the OE.

let me understand your thoughts if this is not the course we need to approach for this area.