Johnny Canuck: Thanks. I have already put the monarch list into an EUII form (with Welsh names, but without IDs) in the monarchs and leaders thread, and suggested some army and random leader names. I have rewritten the Prince Madoc event a bit.
-
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.
I have a couple, of questions about these Welsh events, although generally I like them.
1) For the marcher lords event I would certainly expect a +1 or +2 for plutocracy. Surely choosing to chase out the marcher lords would make Wales less aristocratic.
2) I'm not sure why Wales in decentralized if it rejects the boar of Cornwall. It seems to me that if my goal is a centralized state I'd limit myself to Wales as core. Wouldn't adding Cornwall make you less centrlized?
I like the Henry VII event especially, but I am concerned that the events are generally too positive. I'd like to see a few negative effects thrown in there too.
As to Lotharingia - I like the idea, but I really have to question giving Burgundy so many shields. Would the populace really have welcomed Burgundian occupation simply because the emperor had agreed to hand their territory over the Burgundy? Furthermore I have to believe that such a grant would have played havoc with international relations.
Right off the bat, the emperor has 'assigned' lands that have traditionally been French to Burgundy/Lotharingia, and put into question the French right to those lands. This has got to be a CB issue - permanent CB for France against Burgundy and Austria. It also in an explicit case of the emperor tryign to put himseld ahead of the French crown, and (I would think) would have to be seen as a step towards the emperor asserting his primacy in all of Christendom. At the very least this ought to cause a big relationship hit for Austria with Spain/Castille and England. Next the emperor has given up his claim (as king of Germany and Italy) to be the liege of several imperial territories. I have to think that this would cause trouble in Imperial politics, for example the electors would be choosing a king for a smaller country. Not to mention the fact that the territory of the majority of the electors (Cologne, Trier, Mainz, and the Palatinate) is included in the grant.
Could the emperor have granted Phillips request? Absolutely if he needed Burgundian support enough (at the very least make Burgundy pay heavily for this request 500d minimum). But if he had I really do think that all hell would have broken out.
1) For the marcher lords event I would certainly expect a +1 or +2 for plutocracy. Surely choosing to chase out the marcher lords would make Wales less aristocratic.
2) I'm not sure why Wales in decentralized if it rejects the boar of Cornwall. It seems to me that if my goal is a centralized state I'd limit myself to Wales as core. Wouldn't adding Cornwall make you less centrlized?
I like the Henry VII event especially, but I am concerned that the events are generally too positive. I'd like to see a few negative effects thrown in there too.
As to Lotharingia - I like the idea, but I really have to question giving Burgundy so many shields. Would the populace really have welcomed Burgundian occupation simply because the emperor had agreed to hand their territory over the Burgundy? Furthermore I have to believe that such a grant would have played havoc with international relations.
Right off the bat, the emperor has 'assigned' lands that have traditionally been French to Burgundy/Lotharingia, and put into question the French right to those lands. This has got to be a CB issue - permanent CB for France against Burgundy and Austria. It also in an explicit case of the emperor tryign to put himseld ahead of the French crown, and (I would think) would have to be seen as a step towards the emperor asserting his primacy in all of Christendom. At the very least this ought to cause a big relationship hit for Austria with Spain/Castille and England. Next the emperor has given up his claim (as king of Germany and Italy) to be the liege of several imperial territories. I have to think that this would cause trouble in Imperial politics, for example the electors would be choosing a king for a smaller country. Not to mention the fact that the territory of the majority of the electors (Cologne, Trier, Mainz, and the Palatinate) is included in the grant.
Could the emperor have granted Phillips request? Absolutely if he needed Burgundian support enough (at the very least make Burgundy pay heavily for this request 500d minimum). But if he had I really do think that all hell would have broken out.
At the time, the French lands being assigned to Burgundy hadn't been traditionally French for very long. Well, most of them. Dauphine, Provence, the Low Countries, were all seen as being outside France's traditional, legal border, which had never really moved eastwards from its old border from Lotharingia.
That said, clearly the French of the day would not have viewed it that way, so I see no reason why France shouldn't get their permanent CB.
Also, while Lotharingia existed, its ruler usually seems to have been HRE. My guess is that the electors who now found themselves within Lotharingia would still be voting for HRE, but this would have no impact on the kingship of Lotharingia itself. Just like Francois I was a contender for the diadem, irrespective of his crown as French king.
The imperial fiefs in north Italy, for example, fell to the Empire because of the dissolution of Lotharingia, so it would make sense, I guess, for them to revert. After 500 years, though, everything's up for grabs.
Also, on CB shields, I think they would be there to "guide" Lotharingia's expansion, much like France is guided to take Brittany (which showed very little desire to be ruled by France), etc.
driftwood
That said, clearly the French of the day would not have viewed it that way, so I see no reason why France shouldn't get their permanent CB.
Also, while Lotharingia existed, its ruler usually seems to have been HRE. My guess is that the electors who now found themselves within Lotharingia would still be voting for HRE, but this would have no impact on the kingship of Lotharingia itself. Just like Francois I was a contender for the diadem, irrespective of his crown as French king.
The imperial fiefs in north Italy, for example, fell to the Empire because of the dissolution of Lotharingia, so it would make sense, I guess, for them to revert. After 500 years, though, everything's up for grabs.
Also, on CB shields, I think they would be there to "guide" Lotharingia's expansion, much like France is guided to take Brittany (which showed very little desire to be ruled by France), etc.
driftwood
Pishtaco - I took a quick look through your post on Welsh monarchs in the other thread, & all looks great. One question about the leaders: "Maredudd ap leuan" in the leader list is Maredudd" of the monarch list, right? Perhaps the name should be the same, to avoid any confusion. Also, I'd be glad to test all of the Welsh events, leaders, & monarchs. If you want, you can e-mail me the files you have so far, & I can slap some IDs on them & test them out.
I can see your point about the King of Lotharingia possibly being HRE. However, by the 15th century the HRE was also, by tradition, king of Germany and King of Italy - the three titles were kind of rolled up into one. So if the electors (who were technically electing the King of Germany, who would become HRE and Kign of Italy) found their territory in Lotharingia I'm not sure how it would work. And the Lotharinigia you're proposing is rather more centralized than the HRE leaving less scope for the independence of the electors.
I think Brittany is a bad example, it had been part of France for as long as the kingdom had existed. However, switch it with Lorraine, to which the French had little or no claim and I have to accept your point. My concern is that CB shields have a lot to do with how powerful a country is and this event will make a supercharged Burgundy.
I'm not opposed to the event. I'd imagine that this is what Charles the Bold's ambition really was. However, I would strongly argue that if he had got his way all hell really would have broken loose. I think ceding provinces from HAB to BUR is great - but giving Burgundy all of those shields is unbalancing. So I'd like to see some severe consequences to all of this happening. Examples:
-As the emperor is asserting primacy over Christendom rather than just HRE territory, the pope is extremely upset. Big relations drop and permanent CB.
-As the emperor is giving away territory that is actually in France, and over which France has always asserted its sovereignty, France is more than extremely upset (CB on both parties to the deal, big time relations hit). I agree that Provence had been a part of the Empire, on the other hand Flanders had always been part of France.
-England and Castile, and to a lesser extent every Latin country outside the HRE is very concerned about the emperor's power grab (large relations drop to those most affected, relations drop to all others)
-This minor states granted to Phillip have been put on notice that they are in his sights. Immediate relations drop and CB for all affected countries. Ideally I'd like a fictional event allowing them to form a coalition to defend their rights, presumably led by France. This would have them form an alliance and work a bit like the Cambrai event.
-As I've noted before I think Phillip would have had to pay throught the nose to get any emperor in his right mind to agree to this. The emperors were not generally stupid, although they could usually be bought. So -500d (at least) for Burgundy.
-I'd be inclined to add a civil war based on the people recognizing that this was going to cost them, and the nobles recognizing that their rights were likely to be undermined. I think this is plausible, but I have to admit that it has less historical backing than my other suggestions.
Some of what I say is motivated by my concern for the unbalancing effect of this event. But I think it really does make sense that this sort of move would be resisted by those whose authority it would undermine (the Pope, France, local rulers).
I think Brittany is a bad example, it had been part of France for as long as the kingdom had existed. However, switch it with Lorraine, to which the French had little or no claim and I have to accept your point. My concern is that CB shields have a lot to do with how powerful a country is and this event will make a supercharged Burgundy.
I'm not opposed to the event. I'd imagine that this is what Charles the Bold's ambition really was. However, I would strongly argue that if he had got his way all hell really would have broken loose. I think ceding provinces from HAB to BUR is great - but giving Burgundy all of those shields is unbalancing. So I'd like to see some severe consequences to all of this happening. Examples:
-As the emperor is asserting primacy over Christendom rather than just HRE territory, the pope is extremely upset. Big relations drop and permanent CB.
-As the emperor is giving away territory that is actually in France, and over which France has always asserted its sovereignty, France is more than extremely upset (CB on both parties to the deal, big time relations hit). I agree that Provence had been a part of the Empire, on the other hand Flanders had always been part of France.
-England and Castile, and to a lesser extent every Latin country outside the HRE is very concerned about the emperor's power grab (large relations drop to those most affected, relations drop to all others)
-This minor states granted to Phillip have been put on notice that they are in his sights. Immediate relations drop and CB for all affected countries. Ideally I'd like a fictional event allowing them to form a coalition to defend their rights, presumably led by France. This would have them form an alliance and work a bit like the Cambrai event.
-As I've noted before I think Phillip would have had to pay throught the nose to get any emperor in his right mind to agree to this. The emperors were not generally stupid, although they could usually be bought. So -500d (at least) for Burgundy.
-I'd be inclined to add a civil war based on the people recognizing that this was going to cost them, and the nobles recognizing that their rights were likely to be undermined. I think this is plausible, but I have to admit that it has less historical backing than my other suggestions.
Some of what I say is motivated by my concern for the unbalancing effect of this event. But I think it really does make sense that this sort of move would be resisted by those whose authority it would undermine (the Pope, France, local rulers).
I wish someone (the Threadmaster, who is he, anyway? Need to know my personnel 
) compile all these events, leaders, monarchs, tested and sent them to me for inclusion into EEP.
) compile all these events, leaders, monarchs, tested and sent them to me for inclusion into EEP.
New Burgundy Events
Just test-drove Lambert's Burgundy events with the options switched to encourage HAB to grant my claim for testing purposes. They work like a champ, but have to agree they make Burgundy awful powerful. The lack of revolt risk in the CB-shielded provinces (a different problem entirely) makes them totally painless to gobble up. To offset, how 'bout a later event where revoltrisk +12, lasting, say, 10 years (or higher, maybe much more, given the ahem, trumped up nature of the claim), triggered by the ownership of the affected province(s) after the main Lotharingia event.
Also, the centralization events are so effective, I got to max centralized by the last one without even noticing. Maybe add a bit more cost? Like ducats? Stab hit?
Dyr
Just test-drove Lambert's Burgundy events with the options switched to encourage HAB to grant my claim for testing purposes. They work like a champ, but have to agree they make Burgundy awful powerful. The lack of revolt risk in the CB-shielded provinces (a different problem entirely) makes them totally painless to gobble up. To offset, how 'bout a later event where revoltrisk +12, lasting, say, 10 years (or higher, maybe much more, given the ahem, trumped up nature of the claim), triggered by the ownership of the affected province(s) after the main Lotharingia event.
Also, the centralization events are so effective, I got to max centralized by the last one without even noticing. Maybe add a bit more cost? Like ducats? Stab hit?
Dyr
I think those are all good ideas. But how about this - wouldn't there be European powers happy to see Burgundy emerge as a counterweight to France and Austria? Specifically, wouldn't England and miscellaneous N. German states be happy with this arrangement?
Yes, it's tempting to give big centralization bonuses for events, but it's generally a bad idea. Leaves you nowhere to go. I don't know what Burgundy's DP settings are, but maybe +1 or +2 would be more appropriate.
It's not like Burgundy's very hard to play right now, anyway. As long as you do well in that first war, you're set to cruise ...
While Brittany had always been within France, it had also never paid more than nominal attention to orders from Paris. Well, back in the day they were in good company ignoring Paris, but they were the only ones to keep up the practice as the Kingdom unified. That's why I mentionned them. And I thought Flanders was considered in the Empire originally.
driftwood
Yes, it's tempting to give big centralization bonuses for events, but it's generally a bad idea. Leaves you nowhere to go. I don't know what Burgundy's DP settings are, but maybe +1 or +2 would be more appropriate.
It's not like Burgundy's very hard to play right now, anyway. As long as you do well in that first war, you're set to cruise ...
While Brittany had always been within France, it had also never paid more than nominal attention to orders from Paris. Well, back in the day they were in good company ignoring Paris, but they were the only ones to keep up the practice as the Kingdom unified. That's why I mentionned them. And I thought Flanders was considered in the Empire originally.
driftwood
France,Brittany
Hi all,
I have to disagree on the whole Brittany/Lorraine issue.
Someone said 'Brittany has always been part of France, while Lorraine would be outside of the traditional view of France'.
That is completely incorrect! In 500ce the Frankish kingdom was northern/northeastern France, and Belgium.
In 800 Charles held most of modern day France plus Lorraine, the old Burgundian Kingdom, the Rhineland, and as far east as the edge of the Saxon Duchies.
In 1000 Hugh Capet's kingdom was hardly more than the area around Paris although with nominal suzerainty over more land.
in 1260 France controlled the eastern 2/3rds of France and there was an independent Lorraine.
By 1360 France was a nominal vassal of England and Brittany, which had never been directly ruled by France was a strong independent Duchy with much more connection to England.
by 1419, where our game starts, Brittany is again a nominal vassal of England and still has a slight claim on the English royal family.
By comparison Lower Lorraine had disapeared by this time while Upper Lorraine was just the province of Lorraine and untill the Burgundian civil war were under the 'protection' of the crown of France.
I do not believe that Burgundy should get any extra CBs because they were only nominally an independent country. Burgundy (the Duchy) was given to a relative of the King of France as a vassal of the Crown, not to be an independent country. Burgundy ended up gaining much more land (Brabant, Hainaut, Flanders, overlordship over the counties of Holland and Zeeland, etc.)
through fortouitous marriages. This additional strength did allow Burgundy to start acting independent from the Crown of France.
I don't believe that Brittany was ever directly ruled till 1503 after Anne.
Michael
Hi all,
I have to disagree on the whole Brittany/Lorraine issue.
Someone said 'Brittany has always been part of France, while Lorraine would be outside of the traditional view of France'.
That is completely incorrect! In 500ce the Frankish kingdom was northern/northeastern France, and Belgium.
In 800 Charles held most of modern day France plus Lorraine, the old Burgundian Kingdom, the Rhineland, and as far east as the edge of the Saxon Duchies.
In 1000 Hugh Capet's kingdom was hardly more than the area around Paris although with nominal suzerainty over more land.
in 1260 France controlled the eastern 2/3rds of France and there was an independent Lorraine.
By 1360 France was a nominal vassal of England and Brittany, which had never been directly ruled by France was a strong independent Duchy with much more connection to England.
by 1419, where our game starts, Brittany is again a nominal vassal of England and still has a slight claim on the English royal family.
By comparison Lower Lorraine had disapeared by this time while Upper Lorraine was just the province of Lorraine and untill the Burgundian civil war were under the 'protection' of the crown of France.
I do not believe that Burgundy should get any extra CBs because they were only nominally an independent country. Burgundy (the Duchy) was given to a relative of the King of France as a vassal of the Crown, not to be an independent country. Burgundy ended up gaining much more land (Brabant, Hainaut, Flanders, overlordship over the counties of Holland and Zeeland, etc.)
through fortouitous marriages. This additional strength did allow Burgundy to start acting independent from the Crown of France.
I don't believe that Brittany was ever directly ruled till 1503 after Anne.
Michael
1415
Hi all,
Another probably pointless comment....
In 1415 when the King of France was raising an Army to oppose Harry and his super Welshmen
The call was taken up by many nobles who were nominally controlled by the Duke of Burgundy.
Even the Duke of Brabant (who was the younger brother of Charles, D. of Burgundy) fought for
the French King at Agincourt. It was into the 1440's before the Duke of Burgundy realized that 75% of their revenue was coming from the the old Lower Lorraine and not from the Duchy and County of Burguundy. At that point the dukes did move their private residence to Mechelen and eventually to Brussels.
This game would be more accurate if Brabant province was part of Burgundy in 1419, and Artois was Hainaut and a vassal of Burgundy. even that is not correct, but untill they make an accurate map of northwest France that is about the best we can do for this.
Of course then we should make Calais province Artois province and give it to Burgundy. jeez,
the English controlled 10 miles around the city of Calais and they make it one of the larger provinces in NE France! grr... Calais should be split into 2 provinces Calais with a value of '2'
held by England and Artois with a value of '6' held by Burgundy.
But that is neither here nor there....
I would like to know what arrangements Harry had to make with the Duke of Burgundy to cross artois to get to Calais? or did he arrange with the C. of Artois? or did he just march across this land with out any arrangements? History books leave so many important details unanswered!
sigh....
Mike
Hi all,
Another probably pointless comment....
In 1415 when the King of France was raising an Army to oppose Harry and his super Welshmen
The call was taken up by many nobles who were nominally controlled by the Duke of Burgundy.
Even the Duke of Brabant (who was the younger brother of Charles, D. of Burgundy) fought for
the French King at Agincourt. It was into the 1440's before the Duke of Burgundy realized that 75% of their revenue was coming from the the old Lower Lorraine and not from the Duchy and County of Burguundy. At that point the dukes did move their private residence to Mechelen and eventually to Brussels.
This game would be more accurate if Brabant province was part of Burgundy in 1419, and Artois was Hainaut and a vassal of Burgundy. even that is not correct, but untill they make an accurate map of northwest France that is about the best we can do for this.
Of course then we should make Calais province Artois province and give it to Burgundy. jeez,
the English controlled 10 miles around the city of Calais and they make it one of the larger provinces in NE France! grr... Calais should be split into 2 provinces Calais with a value of '2'
held by England and Artois with a value of '6' held by Burgundy.
But that is neither here nor there....
I would like to know what arrangements Harry had to make with the Duke of Burgundy to cross artois to get to Calais? or did he arrange with the C. of Artois? or did he just march across this land with out any arrangements? History books leave so many important details unanswered!
sigh....
Mike
Originally posted by Crook
I wish someone (the Threadmaster, who is he, anyway? Need to know my personnel
I'm not really sure if there is a threatmaster here, or if there is, I haven't seen him around for a while. I've been trying to put the British Isles events, leaders, etc. together for the EEP, but I don't know about the rest.
Thanks for the comments. You're right about the marcher lords; I'm not so sure about the centralization, but I've made that change too (and edited the post). I was thinking of the +1 centralization England gets from the Union with Scotland, but that's certainly a different situation. The DP effects of decentralization probably are more appropriate here.
Otherwise I have made the events a shade less positive and added a negative event in 1531, based on some cleaning up Henry VIII did in Wales to preprare for the reformation.
Johnny Canuck: That would be great. I will try to script these and send them to you by the end of the weak.
Re: France,Brittany
To me the history of the nominal overlords provides a strong basis for CB shields. Flanders had been subject to French overlordship (again nominal) until it was transferred to the Empire. I believe this happened in 1477 - so the CB shield there is a no brainer. Brittany hadn't been directly ruled by France, but had always been part of France, and had always acknowledged the King of France as it's overlord. Even when the King of France happened to be the King of England. I don't believe the same is true of Lorraine.
Driftwood- my thoughts on the Lotharingia event is that the grant would clearly have the Emperor asserting his ability to dispose of territories that owed their fealty to France. Effectively he'd be saying that As emperor he was above the King of France. This was a claim that the emperors had asserted in the Middle Ages and was resisted by various kings who didn't want to accept anyones nominal overlordship. I can't see that England would be happy about this turn of events. As to the german states, you may be right. The balance of power woudld be shifted to some extent in their favour, and an emperor who was busy asserting his right to rule all of Christianity would be unlikely to bother them. On the other hand this grant would undermine the imperial constitution, although I don't know enough about how the empire worked in the 15th century to guess at the implications of that. So I'm moslty guessing really.
I guess I didn't quite say what I meant to say here. My point was that by the 15th century Brittany had been a nominal part of the kingdom of France for centuries.
I was concerned with nominal suzerainty, which in my mind is consistent with a CB shield. As the traditional lords overlord it would be easier for a monarch acting as French King to rule Brittany directly. And I have to confess that I tend to think of France as Hugh Capet onwards, although obviously the Corolingian kingdom was a direct antecedant. I'm pretty sure Hugh Capet had nominal suzereignty over Brittany, I had the impression that he did not have nominal suzereinty over Lorraine. Is this right?
This is where it gets confusing because Edward III had made his claim to the French throne, and the Breton relationship to England was surely to the king of England in his role as king of France. Clearly Brittany was effectively independent, was it fully legally independent? I ask this because it drives my opinion on CB shields - I believe that the nominal vassalage of Brittany on France had never been questioned, although for most of the time it had little to no real meaning. However, it provides a legal basis for the French king to claim Brittany, and a basis for him to assert his right to rule the people (he was always the Duke's overlord).
But once more it is a nominal vassal to France as represented by Henry V who is recognised by Brittany as King of France.
I really had thought that the province of Lorraine was under imperial jurisdiction at this time. Certainly Franch-Comte, and most of the lowlands were part of the Empire and therefore recognized the nominal overlordship of the Emperor and not the King of France. I knwo that the Dukes of Burgundy paid homage to both the King of France and the Emperor for different territories that they held. In fact this is my problem with the Lotharingia event - it sounds to me like an attempt by Burgundy to raise themselves up to the level of the King of France and the Emperor/King of Germany (again based on claims to the Carolingian kingdoms). In fact the Duke's of Burgundy were nominal vassals of both. And it looks to me like Charles was thinking that he could use the Lotharingian grant as a way for him to renounce his fealty to both France and the emperor, or at least to the emperor as king of Germany. At what time was Lorraine transferred from French nominal rule to Imperial nominal rule? To me that determines the justification for a French CB shield on Lorraine.
To me the history of the nominal overlords provides a strong basis for CB shields. Flanders had been subject to French overlordship (again nominal) until it was transferred to the Empire. I believe this happened in 1477 - so the CB shield there is a no brainer. Brittany hadn't been directly ruled by France, but had always been part of France, and had always acknowledged the King of France as it's overlord. Even when the King of France happened to be the King of England. I don't believe the same is true of Lorraine.
Driftwood- my thoughts on the Lotharingia event is that the grant would clearly have the Emperor asserting his ability to dispose of territories that owed their fealty to France. Effectively he'd be saying that As emperor he was above the King of France. This was a claim that the emperors had asserted in the Middle Ages and was resisted by various kings who didn't want to accept anyones nominal overlordship. I can't see that England would be happy about this turn of events. As to the german states, you may be right. The balance of power woudld be shifted to some extent in their favour, and an emperor who was busy asserting his right to rule all of Christianity would be unlikely to bother them. On the other hand this grant would undermine the imperial constitution, although I don't know enough about how the empire worked in the 15th century to guess at the implications of that. So I'm moslty guessing really.
Re: Re: France,Brittany
Well, that's one school of thought on CB shields. The other is that they should represent the wishes of the people (or at least the local potentates). Make of that what you will. I lean towards your interpretation, but I am trying to make greater allowances for the other (equally valid) view.
The area that would be redistributed in the Lotharingia event would be almost completely non-French, so you wouldn't have the issue of the Emperor disposing of French territory (Bourgogne, Dauphine, Provence are the exceptions - oh, and maybe Flanders & Artois?).
You are absolutely correct that Charles would be renouncing his fealty to the King of France and the HRE/King of Germany/King of Italy (perhaps receiving the last title). AFAIK, he paid fealty to the French King in his role as royal duke of Burgundy - all his other territories (notably Franche-Comte) were in the Empire, and therefore he owed fealty for them to the HRE.
So if the HRE granted this longshot Lotharingia thing, it's not like he would be dicing up French territory. However, he would be reasserting feudal rights that had effectively lapsed centuries before and be showing that he could act with complete disregard for France (which is not quite the same as putting yourself above the French king).
driftwood
Well, that's one school of thought on CB shields. The other is that they should represent the wishes of the people (or at least the local potentates). Make of that what you will. I lean towards your interpretation, but I am trying to make greater allowances for the other (equally valid) view.
The area that would be redistributed in the Lotharingia event would be almost completely non-French, so you wouldn't have the issue of the Emperor disposing of French territory (Bourgogne, Dauphine, Provence are the exceptions - oh, and maybe Flanders & Artois?).
You are absolutely correct that Charles would be renouncing his fealty to the King of France and the HRE/King of Germany/King of Italy (perhaps receiving the last title). AFAIK, he paid fealty to the French King in his role as royal duke of Burgundy - all his other territories (notably Franche-Comte) were in the Empire, and therefore he owed fealty for them to the HRE.
So if the HRE granted this longshot Lotharingia thing, it's not like he would be dicing up French territory. However, he would be reasserting feudal rights that had effectively lapsed centuries before and be showing that he could act with complete disregard for France (which is not quite the same as putting yourself above the French king
).driftwood
I think we roughly agree here. By 'putting himself above France' I meant that the Emperor would be asserting feudal rights over France (and actually just the king of France rather than the whole country), not that he would be actually changing the situation on the ground. I would argue that these feudal right hadn't "lapsed" centuries before, they were actively thrown off.
I also agree that most of the territory is in the Empire and the Kingdom of Germany rather than the Kingdom of France, and were thus (in a technical sense) the emperor's to dispose of. However the local powers on the ground would presumably disagree. They really need to get CBs against Burgundy. I'll script these events if necessary.
But to me the bigger issue with the grant is the universalist vision of the empire that it implies. This had been resisted very strongly by the embryonic nation states the last time around, and I would think that it would be again.
To reiterate, I really do like the event, but I firmly belive that Burgundy should pay more to get the benefits. Permanent CBs from various states, large cash bribes to the empire, stability hits (the local nobles had sworn fealty to Burgundy, BUT, only in his role as "vassal" of France ot the Empire), NO centraliztion shift (if anything I'd do the opposite, as king of Lotharingia, Charles ought to be appointing a Duke of Flanders, Count of Brabant etc.), and possibly other DP effects for both parties (HAB and BUR).
I also agree that most of the territory is in the Empire and the Kingdom of Germany rather than the Kingdom of France, and were thus (in a technical sense) the emperor's to dispose of. However the local powers on the ground would presumably disagree. They really need to get CBs against Burgundy. I'll script these events if necessary.
But to me the bigger issue with the grant is the universalist vision of the empire that it implies. This had been resisted very strongly by the embryonic nation states the last time around, and I would think that it would be again.
To reiterate, I really do like the event, but I firmly belive that Burgundy should pay more to get the benefits. Permanent CBs from various states, large cash bribes to the empire, stability hits (the local nobles had sworn fealty to Burgundy, BUT, only in his role as "vassal" of France ot the Empire), NO centraliztion shift (if anything I'd do the opposite, as king of Lotharingia, Charles ought to be appointing a Duke of Flanders, Count of Brabant etc.), and possibly other DP effects for both parties (HAB and BUR).
Another idea
Another thought on this event - how about giving the emperor (HAB) a third option that would be less radical. This would reduce the chance that "Uber-Burgundy" shows up, and is at least as historical as the idea that the Emperor would have granted Charles the Bold's request.
What I'm vaguely thinking is that rather than grant Charles the Kingdom of Lotharingia with all the historical baggage that goes along with that he decides to call him "Grand Duke of Lorraine" or some such thing. He gets important roles in the Imperial politics of the region, is recognized as the leading vassal of the emperor, and (in my dreams) an electoral vote. Practically any 'lotharingian' provinces owned by Burgundy become national, and a nicve stability bonus. A smaller bribe to the emperor to get this grant.
Obviously this isn't motivated by history but by game balance. And as there are two requests the event logic would get cumbersome. Any thoughts?
Another thought on this event - how about giving the emperor (HAB) a third option that would be less radical. This would reduce the chance that "Uber-Burgundy" shows up, and is at least as historical as the idea that the Emperor would have granted Charles the Bold's request.
What I'm vaguely thinking is that rather than grant Charles the Kingdom of Lotharingia with all the historical baggage that goes along with that he decides to call him "Grand Duke of Lorraine" or some such thing. He gets important roles in the Imperial politics of the region, is recognized as the leading vassal of the emperor, and (in my dreams) an electoral vote. Practically any 'lotharingian' provinces owned by Burgundy become national, and a nicve stability bonus. A smaller bribe to the emperor to get this grant.
Obviously this isn't motivated by history but by game balance. And as there are two requests the event logic would get cumbersome. Any thoughts?
Good Lord, I've put the cat amoung the pigeons
Just a quick point, I believe Burgundy's vassalization to France had been cancelled in the peace of Arras in 1435, before the first of these events.
Just a quick point, I believe Burgundy's vassalization to France had been cancelled in the peace of Arras in 1435, before the first of these events.
I agree entirely that effectively Burgundy was no vassal of France. They certainly had a large degree of freedom of action. However, the fact remained that the domains in Burgundy were in France and the Dukes paid hommage to the king for them. The use of the word vassal is causing entirely too mcuh confusion in this thread. I need a word for the strictly legal aspects of the relationship as opposed to vassalship in the game which has financial and diplomatic consequences. However, I have no idea what word that is. Feudatory? I certainly hope not - too painful to write.
Well, with a 2 choice event, there would only be a 15% chance of granting Charles' request.
Without sparking yet another debate on historical trends in the late medieval period, there's a good chance that the new King of Lotharingia would seize new opportunities to put land directly under his control, rather than reappointing feudatory vassals to rule Flanders, Brabant, and wherever, and therefore potentially restarting the whole cycle.
Maybe the proper way to handle that would be a followup event asking how to structure the kingdom - centralized, feudally, whatever.
driftwood
Without sparking yet another debate on historical trends in the late medieval period, there's a good chance that the new King of Lotharingia would seize new opportunities to put land directly under his control, rather than reappointing feudatory
vassals to rule Flanders, Brabant, and wherever, and therefore potentially restarting the whole cycle.Maybe the proper way to handle that would be a followup event asking how to structure the kingdom - centralized, feudally, whatever.
driftwood