Another Brilliant Idea- Granting Independence

[Mariani]

Let's say a player, as Venice, wins a hard-fought war against Turkey, and gains the provinces of Hellas, Morea and whatever other provinces constitute something that might be called Greece. He'd have to administer these Orthodox provinces, defend them (in such close proximity to Istanbul)...i think it'd be swell if you could GRANT independence. The nation could be your vassal, y'd have great relations w/ them...but they'd still have some degree of autonomy.

Might figure in as a cool way to launch some wars of liberation, and break up empires (after war w/, say, an Austria that dominated central europe, you could reconstitute certain principalities). Would also, I believe, be a bit more historically accurate. what do you think?

------------------
'A set of local sovereign states can be no more than a transitory political configuration.'- Toynbee

 

[unmerged(596)]

I like the idea of liberating already existing countries that have been annexed.

I don't agree with liberating countries that never existed in the game in the first place, like Greece.

 

[Savant]

Hey... that is a good idea! But of course if the nation never existed during the time period it would be a stretch. As it is, I thought there was also a limit on the number of nations available.. I think it's 75? So that would require some changes I suppose.

But Mariani, I like the idea. Maybe limiting it to those nations that actually existed in the time period might be more manageable from a program perspective and realistic from a historical simulation view.

------------------
~ Salve ~

 

[Oranje]

Hello Mariani,

I appreciate your effort to post your thought, but:
1, Idea isn't new, has been offered by several others already.
2. I wouldn't announce ideas as great myself, might put some people on the defensive straight away (just a tip).

greetings, Oranje

------------------
Common sense is the set of prejudices acquired at age eighteen.
Albert Einstein

 

[Mariani]

Originally posted by Oranje:

I appreciate your effort to post your thought, but:
1, Idea isn't new, has been offered by several others already.
2. I wouldn't announce ideas as great myself, might put some people on the defensive straight away (just a tip).

greetings, Oranje

Sorry, yet another illustration of why I prefer to communicate in person... the word 'brilliant', used to describe my trite litte idea, was certainly meant to be at least 99.9% sarcastic. I would never be so presumptuous as to speak otherwise...

...and as to the idea being stale, I've frequented this forum on a near-daily basis since late february, I believe, and had never really come across the specific idea of granting 'potential' nations independence. If i'm wrong (quite likely), I apologize for my oversight.

would be cool, though.

------------------
'A set of local sovereign states can be no more than a transitory political configuration.'- Toynbee

[This message has been edited by Mariani (edited 25-01-2001).]

 

[unmerged(299)]

Well, very nice idea, BUT is it historical?
Seen from the XXth century, it's a noble concept. If you take the perspective of this time, the tendency was to the creation of great empires.

Your example of Greece makes some sense because we assume that in regard of the power of the Turks we would like to be elsewhere or have some allies when they will strike back.

Now, let's take the example of Navarre previously annexed by Spain. France conquer it, do you really believe that France will accept to give liberty to Navarre depriving themselves of the wealth of this province and of a strategic position on the border.

Even as a vassal, it could become dangerous, you could lose its control, Spain could take it back more easily by a fast campaign followed by a peace step before you might even intervene if you are busy elsewhere.

Now, there was many possibilities that really happened where a previously free country was conquered by someone else, they never gave back their liberty:
- did Austria gave independence to Hungary.
- Did France gave independence to Franche comté (Burgundy).
- Did Prussia gave liberty to Mecklenburg and other Hanseatic cities.

Your idea is nice and would be correct for a game on the XXth century, but it doesn't reflect the situation of the time covered by EU.

Kind regards,
Crusader

 

[unmerged(281)]

I agree, but only because players would 'abuse' it, that is, use liberation in a modern manner.

Actually, now that I think about, nobody probably tried to liberate the Greeks, partly because they would be such unruly subjects. You know, with their noses in the air, going on about how they invented civilization.
------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon

[This message has been edited by GulFalco (edited 25-01-2001).]

 

[unmerged(598)]

It's an interesting idea, even though it doesn't appear to happen historicaly. A little later Napoleon set up the Rhine Confed, and Duchy of Warsaw, slightly outside the timeline though.

BUT Wouldn't it have been advantageous for Britain to grant independence to America instead of fighting a long and costly war. Provided there is something to be gained by the power ceding authority it may have it's place in the game, perhaps not until the 18th century.

After all EU gives us a chance to simulate what might happen.

Is there a method for swapping provinces? For instance you lose Province A in a war, in your next war you capture province B, is there a way to trade them back for purposes of borders, religion etc.

 

[unmerged(658)]

sean, napoleon did set up the Confederation of the Rhine, the Duchy of Warsaw, Helvetic republic etc, but he didnt grant them independence, he just took on the title of the ruler of each state, i.e. Duke of Warsaw. Liberating nations is a XXth century idea.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by sean9898:
Is there a method for swapping provinces? For instance you lose Province A in a war, in your next war you capture province B, is there a way to trade them back for purposes of borders, religion etc.

Unfortunately, no. This is one of the proposed changes to the system for peace negotiations.

 

[unmerged(238)]

This has probably come up, but a less radical yet very historical approach would be to allow a nation to send 'aid' to rebels and others just to help keep an active thorn in an enemy's side. I'm thinking of the Duke of Buckingham's effort to help the French rebels in La Rochelle and the regular French convoys to Ireland, Scotland, Messina, etc. It doesn't even have to be in the form of troops - a couple of merchantmen carrying gold, gunpowder, guns and a few 'advisors' went a long way back then.

Diplomatically 'recognizing' rebels in an attempt to give them legitimacy while undermining the crown they're rebelling against was also rather popular among progressive troublemakers. Perhaps, in game terms, that could be used to push a merely irate territory into a rebellion they might not undertake otherwise. Just think of it...secret meetings, clandestine rendevous, incriminating letters, cloak and dagger.

Does this have potential?

Dan

 

[Mariani]

Originally posted by DanGuy:

Diplomatically 'recognizing' rebels in an attempt to give them legitimacy while undermining the crown they're rebelling against was also rather popular among progressive troublemakers. Perhaps, in game terms, that could be used to push a merely irate territory into a rebellion they might not undertake otherwise. Just think of it...secret meetings, clandestine rendevous, incriminating letters, cloak and dagger.

Does this have potential?

Dan

The prospect of being midwife to an independent Ireland in EU is a great one...

Perhaps the 'Claim Throne By Ancestry' action can be occasionally accompanied by rebellions in the target country, given appropriate circumstances. (ex.: Catholic France claims the throne of Protestant England, and this increases the revolt risk of Catholic provinces in the English domains)



------------------
'A set of local sovereign states can be no more than a transitory political configuration.'- Toynbee

 

[unmerged(500)]

Originally posted by brendiaz:
sean, napoleon did set up the Confederation of the Rhine, the Duchy of Warsaw, Helvetic republic etc, but he didnt grant them independence, he just took on the title of the ruler of each state, i.e. Duke of Warsaw. Liberating nations is a XXth century idea.

Not really. Poles pushed Napoleon hard for liberating Poland and duchy of Warsaw got:
king from Wettin dynasty ,just as Poles demanded in constituion of 3rd May
Polish own army with Polish national signs (eagles, etc) and Polish commanders
Polish own government
In Polish history duchy of Warsaw is treated as independent (but not sovereign) state
(i hope translation of niepodlegla and suwerenna make sense in English also).
a.d.danilecki 'szopen'

 

[unmerged(391)]

It would be cool to be able to constitute a 'cordon sanitaire'. I like the idea ptretty much. Think abaout the posibilities:
You constitue a minor country which should , of course be grateful and become an instant vassal. Of course this country occupies some 'core' provinces of your worst enemy. Sooner or later he WILL send a DOW and voila your DOW follows suit. Best of all NO STABILITY LOSS

------------------
'Reports of my death are highly exaggerated'

 

[Doomdark]

Take a look at this thread:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forums/Forum1/HTML/001181.html

/Doomie

 

[unmerged(181)]

On a historical note, Venice did conquer Morea (with Austria) in 1684-88. However, the territory proved to be a burden and they returned it to the Turks in 1718. Apparently, given the choice of granting it independence or giving it to their enemy, they picked the latter. Liberating and granting independence was not a popular choice I guess.

As for the Duchy of Warsaw, Napoleon was considering giving it to Russia in negotiation. It may have had its own king but it was still Napoleon's territory to do as he sees fit.

 

[Freodin]

It wouldn´t bother me if I COULD return some provinces to an enemy, but even this is im
possible.

[This message has been edited by Freodin (edited 25-01-2001).]

 

[unmerged(23)]

Napoleon never created a state because he wanted to see people being free.
Forget this idea. It was part of his scheme to either hamper his ennemies power (letting them some troubles to deal with after the war) or either for political control, more or less direct (he liked to place his family at important posts), a kind of vassalization.

Napoleon was a nice dictator.

Pierre
A rare case among French, who dislike, at best, Napoleon (I would sometimes say I hate this guy)

[This message has been edited by pierre (edited 25-01-2001).]

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by pierre:
Napoleon never created a state because he wanted to see people being free.
Forget this idea. It was part of his scheme to either hamper his ennemies power (letting them some troubles to deal with after the war) or either for political control, more or less direct (he liked to place his family at important posts), a kind of vassalization.

That is the idea. Read the original post

 

[unmerged(23)]

It was just a comment

------------------
Pierre
Retired EU Beta Tester