I am being serious since EUR is suposed to have some real history to it, did empires after taking over lands really have to send envoys to ask permision to keep what they already owned? after taking voer every single land of a enemy emprie did they really send diplomats to ask to only keep some of the lands and gave the rest back?
-
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.
Tulan said:
Yes and no - Just like you technically needed a formal declaration to go to war, you needed a formal agreement with your enemy that the war was over. You couldn't just say - 'OK, I'm done' and expect to automaticly have the enemy do the same. During peace talks, agreements as to who would get disputed lands would be covered. There were exceptions to this, just like there were times when wars were launched without notice, but overall its a reasonable requirement.
You CAN make an argument that you should get full owned benefits from occupied territory even before a formal peace treaty, BUT this would have lots of gameplay issues and overall I think the way it is handled is resonable from that perspective.
Tulan said:
Didn't you watch the move "Troy"? In those times they gave most all of the lands back for just the pledge of fighting for them when they went to war. Sometimes instead of war they sent their best warriors to face each other..see the movie. hehehe (boy I know I'm gonna get tarred and feathered on this one).
Yeah using Troy for a source of historical facts seems pretty accurate.Grumpyoldman said:
i also agree that you ought to be able to annex whatever territory you want if they are wholly beaten, I was very frustrated fighting macedonia where once i seized all of their provinces, they still would not settle for my demand (98% warscore demanded out of 100% warscore) At that point all of their armies and fleets had been crushed.
You should be allowed to annex at that point, and then if it is deemed too much land to manage, you ought to just have to deal with rebellions.
You should be allowed to annex at that point, and then if it is deemed too much land to manage, you ought to just have to deal with rebellions.
From a historical point of view, it wasn't common for whole swathes of enemy territory to be annexed at once. The best example I can think of off the top of my head would be Alexander, but his conquests would be better thought of in terms of turbo-annexation (although, unlike turbo-annexing, conflict was still going on afterwards).
More common was the conqueror demanding that the subjugated enemy should pay a hefty tribute rather than directly controlling the land. Often they'd force the defeated enemy to give land to other neighbours, too.
Why was this the case? There are a few reasons:
1. You don't have to control the land yourself. Populations don't really like being under the control of foreigners. We see this a lot in recent times, too: Israel, Yugoslavia, many of the former Soviet-controlled nations, etc. By imposing a penalty, you get all (or even more!) of the benefits of owning the land without the problems associated with it.
2. It's a good display to your neighbours that you aren't just going to conquer them next. Rulers tend to get a little jittery when their neighbours are conquered.
3. If they don't pay, then you have a good reason to go to war with them again
For example, when Rome defeataed Macedon in the Second Macedonian War, they took no land at all and demanded 1000 talents (that's a lot of gold!) in tribute. The reason they did this was because the war started as assistance to Rome's allies in Greece (the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues didn't like Philip V's expansion in Greece); if Rome had decided to annex any territory, then they would be no better than the Macedonians in the eyes of the Greeks. It was a great propaganda point, when the Roman commander proclaimed loudly to his Greek audience that "all of the Greeks in Greece and Asia were now free."
As a sidenote, the Aetolians saw through this and asked the Seleucids to attack the Romans. A couple of battles later and the Seleucids were having to pay 10,000 talents in tribute...
More common was the conqueror demanding that the subjugated enemy should pay a hefty tribute rather than directly controlling the land. Often they'd force the defeated enemy to give land to other neighbours, too.
Why was this the case? There are a few reasons:
1. You don't have to control the land yourself. Populations don't really like being under the control of foreigners. We see this a lot in recent times, too: Israel, Yugoslavia, many of the former Soviet-controlled nations, etc. By imposing a penalty, you get all (or even more!) of the benefits of owning the land without the problems associated with it.
2. It's a good display to your neighbours that you aren't just going to conquer them next. Rulers tend to get a little jittery when their neighbours are conquered.
3. If they don't pay, then you have a good reason to go to war with them again
For example, when Rome defeataed Macedon in the Second Macedonian War, they took no land at all and demanded 1000 talents (that's a lot of gold!) in tribute. The reason they did this was because the war started as assistance to Rome's allies in Greece (the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues didn't like Philip V's expansion in Greece); if Rome had decided to annex any territory, then they would be no better than the Macedonians in the eyes of the Greeks. It was a great propaganda point, when the Roman commander proclaimed loudly to his Greek audience that "all of the Greeks in Greece and Asia were now free."
As a sidenote, the Aetolians saw through this and asked the Seleucids to attack the Romans. A couple of battles later and the Seleucids were having to pay 10,000 talents in tribute...
Yes, not being able to seize Epirus from Carthage as Macedonia when Carthage's position in the Peloponnesus is blatantly untenable was very annoying. Why should I have to conquer their homeland to extract one isolated province that is clearly indefensible? But Paradox games have always used this system (with the partial exception of HoI), so I'm largely used to it. The absurdly stubborn peace AI does need to be addressed badly though.