Eastern European Countries

[SonofWinter]

Bear in mind that in 1399 Poland is in an alliance and PU with Lithuania, and their combined manpower is higher than France or the Ottomans...

Now, who had more population? Lithuania or Poland at this time? I'm just wondering. Because currently Lithuania is able to field a much greater force than Poland by about a ratio of 2:1. I thought that Poland had the greater MP and Lithuania was the Junior partner in this situation, due to Lithuania being very depleted population wise, due to the GH problem and all the troubles w/TO.

 

[StephenT]

This is mistake btw because de facto ruler of Lithuania since 1392 was Vytautas. This was the compromise achieved after several years of conflict with his cousin Wladyslaw II (Jagiello), the conflict that actually dated back to their fathers. Vytautas used the title of magnus dux (grand duke) and was de jure considered a regent to Jagiello (who continued to style himself as supremus dux lithuaniae) but in practice Vytutas was absolutely sovereign ruler.

So what you're saying is, Lithuania was under the sovereignty of Poland, but was allowed autonomous self-government with a relative of the King of Poland as its Grand Duke? That sounds like a Personal Union is a perfectly good way of depicting things. I don't think it absolutely has to mean the two countries have the same ruler, otherwise that would be an annexation, not a PU.

And Lithuanian troops and Polish troops fought side-by-side against both the Golden Horde and the Teutonic Order, so I don't see why you're disagreeing on their alliance.

Now, who had more population? Lithuania or Poland at this time? I'm just wondering. Because currently Lithuania is able to field a much greater force than Poland by about a ratio of 2:1.

Hardly 2:1. In 1399 Poland's force limit is 20, Mazovia's is 3 and Lithuania's is 27.

As for the population, Wikipedia gives Poland 3.25 million and Lithuania 4.25 million in 1493. If you can find figures from a century earlier, they'd be handy.

 

[Herr Doctor]

So what you're saying is, Lithuania was under the sovereignty of Poland, but was allowed autonomous self-government with a relative of the King of Poland as its Grand Duke? That sounds like a Personal Union is a perfectly good way of depicting things. I don't think it absolutely has to mean the two countries have the same ruler, otherwise that would be an annexation, not a PU.

No, Lithuania was not subject of the Polish Crown and not in any form of sovereign-vassal relations. When Jagiello became the Polish king under the terms of Union of Kreva he tried to establish some form of the Lithuanian vassalship to Poland but failed. There was a civil war in Lithuania which was in result lost by Jagiello who had to recognize Vytautas (yes, his relative but mortal enemy due to their fathers' long bloody rivalry) as the Lithuanian ruler. The "supreme duke" title was more like a formal thing for Jagiello to save his face and to have a pretext to intervene later into Lithuanian affairs when it would be possible again (that happened after the death of Vytautas and civil war in 1430s). Vytautas was absolutely independent political figure and played a major role in Central and Eastern European politics (Hussite wars, vassalisation of many Russian principalities, intrigues in the Hordes, wars with the Order, attempt to receive Royal crown for Lithuania etc). I am pretty sure that making Lithuania a junior partner in some sort of PU in 1399 is a great mistake.

And Lithuanian troops and Polish troops fought side-by-side against both the Golden Horde and the Teutonic Order, so I don't see why you're disagreeing on their alliance.

The personal union, vassalship or alliance are very different things really. To portrait the relations between Vytautas and Jagiello in 1399 as PU between Poland and Lithuania is like to make all imperial princes direct vassals of the emperor.

Hardly 2:1. In 1399 Poland's force limit is 20, Mazovia's is 3 and Lithuania's is 27.

As for the population, Wikipedia gives Poland 3.25 million and Lithuania 4.25 million in 1493. If you can find figures from a century earlier, they'd be handy.

Yes, this is pretty correct, the problem of Lithuania was the terrible density of population as I have mentioned in this thread some time ago.

 

[Manchester.bw]

I would be interested in how will represented early game Hungary. The game starts in 1444. Hungary's greatest king, Mátyás ruled between 1458-90. He conquered the whole of Silesia, Moravia, Lower-Austria (in the end Wien was his capital which he captured in 1485), and the eastern part of Austria while fighting the Ottomans as well. Under him the country was highly centralized and he had a western style army with heavy infantry and etc, a library only bested at time by the pope and huge income to make all this possible. He had no legal heir so after him the whole of it fell apart and the power went to the nobles.

The above was history. What i expect in game: the question will be who eats Hungary? Ottos? Austria? Bohemia? Maybe an alliance of 1 of the latter 2 and Poland?
Oh, i forgot! Hungary has a chance. If i remember correctly it just got in a personal union with Bohemia after Varna. The question is, will it be in the game?

With a 1444 start, a personal union has just begun between Austria and Hungary under Ladislaus Postumus, which IMO is a rather good way to start. Since the game goes into the 17th and 18th centuries, that means even an AI Austria will end up resembling its historical self. I say that it's a good thing, OFC, despite being a Hungarian and a Matthias specialist. And while they could depict a lot of Central Europe very differently, I get what they're going for.

 

[unmerged(303218)]

With a 1444 start, a personal union has just begun between Austria and Hungary under Ladislaus Postumus, which IMO is a rather good way to start. Since the game goes into the 17th and 18th centuries, that means even an AI Austria will end up resembling its historical self. I say that it's a good thing, OFC, despite being a Hungarian and a Matthias specialist. And while they could depict a lot of Central Europe very differently, I get what they're going for.

Yes, 4-year-old Ladislaus Posthumous has just taken to the throne of Hungary after the death of Wladyslav of Poland at the battle of Varna. (Ladislaus was also the Grand duke of Austria since his birth.) However, the PU broke after Ladislaus' death in 1457 (by which point he was also King of Bohemia) and succeeded by an elected Matthias Corvinus in Hungary.

Thus there is no reason to expect the PU to last at first (it was much later, in 1526 that the lasting PU of the Grand Duchy of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary formed, under HREMPEROR Ferdinand I) and once it breaks, the AI is usually unable to reestablish it.

The problem, you see, is that the AI isn't smart enough to realize that the only way to avoid being steamrolled by the OE is to form a region-wide alliance (of Austria, Bohemia, Silesia, Poland and Hungary) partly through PUs and partly through real alliances. (And no, there's no irony in avoiding annexation by OE by choosing to be annexed by HAB - legally, Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary were merely in a PU and nothing more for centuries to come.)

 

[Chamboozer]

PU mechanics don't really do the Austria/Royal Hungary situation justice, nor do vassal mechanics do justice to the Ottoman relationship with Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania, and the whole Zápolya roulette in Hungary. I hope the whole thing gets overhauled and deepened in EUIV.

 

[StephenT]

Vytautas used the title of magnus dux (grand duke) and was de jure considered a regent to Jagiello (who continued to style himself as supremus dux lithuaniae)

No, Lithuania was not subject of the Polish Crown and not in any form of sovereign-vassal relations.

These sentences contradict each other. :blink:

 

[Herr Doctor]

These sentences contradict each other. :blink:

There is nothing contradicting in them. There was a world of complex vassal links between medieval rulers. For (obvious) example, the English kings prior HYW were the vassals of the French kings (in Aquitaine or Normandy). Or the House of Burgundy was de jure vassal both to the French king and the emperor but in practice they were not "vassals" to anyone at all. I believe you would not suggest making Richard the Lionheart a vassal of Philip II of France or Duke Philip the Good vassal of Emperor Sigismund in game.

 

[rybka]

The alliance between Poland and Lithuania was not a sure thing either, as far as I remember Lithuania decided NOT to take part in war with Teutonic Order (now called thirteen years war).

 

[StephenT]

I believe you would not suggest making Richard the Lionheart a vassal of Philip II of France or Duke Philip the Good vassal of Emperor Sigismund in game.

Of course I'd suggest that, if it were possible with the game mechanics.

In the case of Burgundy, their vassalship to the Emperor is already depicted by them being HRE members. The fact that CK2 depicts Normandy and Aquitaine as part of England, not France, is a weakness of the game mechanics (though probably an unavoidable one, since it would be too complex to do otherwise).

 

[Herr Doctor]

The alliance between Poland and Lithuania was not a sure thing either, as far as I remember Lithuania decided NOT to take part in war with Teutonic Order (now called thirteen years war).

Yes, this was also result of compromise. Vytautas tried to manipulate in big game between the emperor, the Hussites, Poland and the Order.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Of course I'd suggest that, if it were possible with the game mechanics.

In the case of Burgundy, their vassalship to the Emperor is already depicted by them being HRE members. The fact that CK2 depicts Normandy and Aquitaine as part of England, not France, is a weakness of the game mechanics (though probably an unavoidable one, since it would be too complex to do otherwise).

Of course it would be great. Unfortunately the current character of the vassalship and PU mechanics also does not portrait correctly historical relations between the late 14th - early 15th centuries Poland and Lithuania.

But as I said this is not the case for 1444 game start anyway.

 

[SonofWinter]

Hardly 2:1. In 1399 Poland's force limit is 20, Mazovia's is 3 and Lithuania's is 27.

As for the population, Wikipedia gives Poland 3.25 million and Lithuania 4.25 million in 1493. If you can find figures from a century earlier, they'd be handy.

Mazovia is not a part of the Polish crown. And Poland doesn't have a claim on the land. So Mazowia is not a consideration, unless this has changed recently as well? So, its 20 vs. 27? I'll have to look at it.

As far as the numbers of 1493, not sure how they'd figure against 1399. I believe that in 1399 Poland might have been a bit more powerful and Lithuania grew into it, with time and relative peace.

 

[Herr Doctor]

As far as the numbers of 1493, not sure how they'd figure against 1399. I believe that in 1399 Poland might have been a bit more powerful and Lithuania grew into it, with time and relative peace.

Quite the opposite in fact. Later Lithuania was weaker as it had terrible ten years of civil war in 1430s and later was involved in very unsuccessful war with Muscovy (1487-1494).

 

[murlocmancer]

One of the few things I think paradox has completly dropped the ball in practically all their games is the hate on Poland. Poland never revolts in Vic2, Poland sucks HARD in EU3, Poland doesn't do anything CK2, and pretty much denmark takes over all the pagans, and poland doesn't ever budge, and about only HOI3 has a good portrayal of Poland. This also follows suite with Ehtiopia, excluding HOI3, where it just can't do anything historically well as it did in real life. These two regions seem to be put in impossible/weak situtations and they don't do anything or get a-historically killed.

 

[StephenT]

Mazovia is not a part of the Polish crown. And Poland doesn't have a claim on the land.

The first mission Poland gets is almost always to get hold of Mazovia as a vassal, then a separate mission to incorporate them. It's never very hard.

 

[Styrbiorn]

I didn't say anything about "equipment or tactics." But especially eastern Finland had extensive horse breeding influenced by trade with Russians that also led to cross-breeding with Russian horses - and generally better horses than mainland Swedish ones. Tradition/culture from this area also made many Finns suitable for cavalry duty in a higher proportion than most Swedes.

Missed this post.
The Finnish regiments had the same small but sturdy horses as the native Swedish. The greatest improvement in horses was when the Baltic and German provinces were conquered: the German cuirassiers had the most impressive beasts in the army.
There were several areas with higher densities of cavalrymen: these were Finland, south-east Götaland and the conquered Dano-Norwegian provinces. The system did not differ in any of those places, it was the same modernization of the medieval noble cavalry levies (basicly the demand on nobility to raise horsemen was replaced with one that gave you tax reductions if you provided one). Finland had, at least from the 16th century, a higher proportion of lower nobility than Sweden proper due to various reasons. The low nobility was obviously more numerous than the higher, and was the part that contributed a large amount of cavalrymen. This is the main reason of plenty of Finnish cavalry regiments - note for example that only one of the three Finnish regiments was raised anywhere close to Russia. The offer to become a cavalry provider was taken up by wealthy farmers in the conquered provinces as well leading to several more regiments in Skåne, Bohuslän etc. I iterate that the most historically correct way to implement this is to have the general system where tax reductions (in certain provinces?) would decrease cavalry cost. I give you that including the myth about the Hakkapellitta contributes to the atmosphere though

 

[polskaGOLA]

These sentences contradict each other. :blink:

It may appear to be contradicting, but trust me, they are both accurate.

The situation was a bit looney.

Jagiello intervened alot into Lithuanian affairs, for example, when his younger brother revolted in Vitebsk, he basically forced Vytaut to take care of him.

The alliance between Poland and Lithuania was not a sure thing either, as far as I remember Lithuania decided NOT to take part in war with Teutonic Order (now called thirteen years war).

They didn't. One of the reasons why Jagiello didn't continue on to siege Malbork after Grunwald and completely annexing the Teutonic Order and eliminating Prussia from the history books (which would've been totally awesome, screw the haters) is because Vytaut didn't really want to continue on with the war. (He had his own concerns at the time in Lithuania)

Mazovia is not a part of the Polish crown. And Poland doesn't have a claim on the land. So Mazowia is not a consideration, unless this has changed recently as well? So, its 20 vs. 27? I'll have to look at it.

You talking about in game?

Mazovia gave up it's independence and became a formal vassal of Poland sometime in the 1380's. Irregardless, Poland always had claim on the land.

The only reason they were independent for longer than other Polish polities and not conquered and incorporated into the Polish crown is because of the political maneuvering of Siemowit III after the death of his younger brother. (He allied with Pomerania, Bohemia and others, and then made a pact with Casimir that he would abandon his allies in exchange for peace) By the 1399 startdate of Eu3, Mazovia was a vassal of Poland because Siemowit's son, Siemowit IV, fought a rebellion against the Polish crown attempting to claim all of Poland for himself, but after the Union of Krewo, he realized his forces were too small in comparison to Poland+Lithuania, so he abandoned his claims and accepted formal vassalage. Siemowit III's other son, Janusz (who continued to rule Warszawa) also had some conflict with Vytaut while all this was going on but I don't recall what happened with him.


All in all, the reigns of Jagiello and Vytaut in Poland and Lithuania is in itself, amongst the most interesting portions of history in Europe in my opinion.

It's too complicated to get it right in game though because like I said earlier, it was looney. I much prefer the startdate of 1444.

 

[Captain Gars]

I give you that including the myth about the Hakkapellitta contributes to the atmosphere though

I'm not sure about what "including the myth" means as they only give you a reduced cost of recruiting in the game?

 

[Styrbiorn]

I'm not sure about what "including the myth" means as they only give you a reduced cost of recruiting in the game?

Merely the name "Hakkapelitta" and that it's Finnish cavalry rather than the general rusthåll system (most of the regiments were in Sweden proper, after all). I was really targetting the posts 57-60: the reduced cost is perfectly justified (it could be combined with a tax reduction, but if that should make sense it should preferably be linear with the number of regiments. I realize that would be very awkward to add and not worth the bother).