Formable nations...... question for devs, and players.

[Hugus]

@Dafool: your lesson in the History of the Iberian Peninsula is quite lost on me. I could never deny I might be biased in my opinions (being Portuguese myself I cannot discard that), but you sir should check your facts, because they are not true.

Let's not forget that Portugal's emergence as an independent kingdom only happened because it was nearly absorbed into Leon.

Well, that statement makes no sense. The county of Portugal was granted as a fiefdom to Henri de Bourgogne in the XI century, jointly with the hand of Tareja Jimenez (the king's illegitimate daughter). It was subject to the King of Castille, Leon & Galicia (Alfonso VI). When Alfonso VI died (1109), the ambition of Henri allied him with Afonso I of Aragon in order to subdue Urraca, the heiress of Alfonso VI (who was Henri sister-in-law and Afonso of Aragon wife curiously). Henri died in that war (1112), but Tareja continued to pursue her late husband's ambition. She was in fact recognized as Queen by Pope Paschal II because of her defence of the county of Coimbra against a Moorish invasion. She was captured, however, (around 1120) by her sister Urraca's army, forcing her to break a peace keeping Portugal as a county and fiefdom from Léon.

Things got a bit agitated when Urraca died and her son Afonso VII assumed the throne. But the status quo was soon established in 1127. However, her son Afonso, would become the polarizing figure of resistance against Galician and Leonese interference in Portugal, and at a very young age was urged by must of the nobility and clergy to take up arms in pursue of his father's ambition of creating an independent realm. He dethroned his mother in 1128 and styled himself Duke of Portugal.

Afonso then preceded to vanquish in battle the invading army of Afonso VII of Leon (so no it was not nearly absorbed). After which he styled himself Prince of Portugal.

It avoided that fate by becoming a vassal of the Papal States.

Preposterous affirmation. Afonso most certainly pledge vassalage to the Holly See (in 1143 I believe) in a diplomatic move to grant the pope's recognition. (Similiar to what other kingdoms had done in the past, such as Aragon or Sicily). Technically all Chrstian Kings were vassals of the Pope. To so declare meant that you had no other overlord, that you were a direct vassal of the Holy See, hence an independent realm. Also, you couldn't rule anything in the XII century without the Pope's approval. It was necessary both for external and internal politics. To be recognized by the church was an important step but it guaranteed nothing. That recognition would not (and did not) keep the armies of Castille-Leon at bay.

That in turn ended in ruin and shortly afterwards Portugal was invaded by Castille.

In 1137 Afonso of Portugal acceded to became vassal to Leon again, because he was the heir appearant to Afonso VII who had a childless marriage (Treaty of Tui). The subsequent birth of two sons made Afonso I renounce the Treaty of Tui. Afonso of Portugal invaded Galicia in 1140 and, according to the contemporary account of the " Chronica Adefonsi imperatoris", he was forced to accede to a kind of hastilude (or tournament), which the Portuguese knights won. Afonso VII was compelled by the rules of chivalry to sign an armistice, that would became the Treaty of Zamora of 1143 in which Afonso VII of Leon & Castille recognized Afonso as the independent ruler of Portugal. If after 14 years of war Leon acceded to a peace that recognized Portugal's sovereignty I doubt it you can say it was nearly absorbed or whatever. After that both kingdoms focused on continuing the Reconquista. To the best of my knowledge there is no documented Leonese/Castillian invasion in this timeline.

The result was a continual string of marriages into the royal family of Castille to prevent future invasions.

Well, after Zamora, Urraca of Portugal (daughter of Afonso) did marry Fernando II of Leon (one of the heirs of Afonso VII). Which did not prevent Afonso of Portugal from declaring war on Léon in 1167 over some dispute concerning the city of Salamanca. Portugal conquered part of Galicia and moved against the armies of Fernando in Badajoz which ended in disaster in 1169, with the capture of Afonso of Portugal. Afonso was released on condition that he'd renounce his conquests in Galicia. So no vassalage, no talk of independence any more. It was a settled thing.

And the Papacy, after squeezing enough gold and privileges for the clergy eventually granted a Bull recognizing Afonso as King in 1179.

The inter-marriaging between the kings of Portugal, Léon, Castille, Aragón and Navarra was a normal affair to secure alliances and to strive for a political balance in the Peninsula. If they served to keep Portugal free from invasions they also served to keep Galicia and Léon free from Portuguese invasions. You always seem to consider Portugal as the little guy, but that reality did not come to be before Castille&Aragon were united in the XVI century. Even in the XV century, Castille was larger than Portugal in area, but if not equal at least not too distant from it in population and manpower. And this marriages did not grant any Iberian Kingdom perpetual peace, the conflicts and minor wars still surfaced from time to time, but everyone's main goal was the Reconquista.

These marriages almost resulted in a union between Leon, Castille, and Portugal in the late 14th century. The Pope prevented this, but a succession war was still fought. During this war the House of Aviz takes Portugal's throne and things returned to the status quo.

Not quite so. In the XIV century Pedro I of Castille was murdered by his bastard half-brother Henrique de Trastamara opening the field for the wars over the throne of Castile&Léon. There were several pretenders: Fernando I of Portugal, Carlos II of Navarra, the King of Aragon and the Duke of Lancaster. It got a messy affair because there were so many parties and the war was never conclusive to neither side (and no there was no invasion of Portugal either). The Pope did mediate the peace between all these parts (which included a lot of marriages of course). So that's one war.

One of those marriages was between Infanta Beatriz of Portugal and John I of Castille (son and heir of Henrique de Trastamara). Now, by then John already had two male heirs from his previous marriage to an Aragonese Infanta, who would became one the King of Castille and the other the King of Aragon. Now, the idea was that either Ferdinand still produced a male heir or his daughter would. Even in this last scenario the crowns would not merge. John I of Castille would be father to three kings of three independent kingdoms.

Now Ferdinand of Portugal died without male heir either by him or his daughter. That raised fears that indeed the crown would be passed to one of the other sons of John of Castille. And then a Civil War issued in Portugal (the Interregnum of 1385-1387). John of Castille did invade Portugal in 1384 and was defeated at the Battle of Atoleiros. He then managed to siege Lisbon for 5 months and was defeated again. Partially because the Portuguese won the naval Battle of the Tejo, managing to supply the city. A portuguese maritime expedition conquered many ports in Galicia in that same year. Stil in 1384 John of Castille tryed to conquer Porto and was defeated at the Battle of Leça. John of Castille was defeated once more at the Battle of Trancoso in the following year 1385. In August 1385 the Portuguese won a definitive victory at Aljubarrota. And then another at Valverde in October. By the end of the year the whole country recognized the new King John I of Portugal.

The Treaty of Windsor was signed in 1386 guaranteeing the support of England. Making Castille and France powerless to conquer Portugal. (One should not forget that this succession dispute blended in the major conflict of the Hundred Years War). An armistice was signed in 1387 a renewed several times until peace was finally broke with the treaty of Ayllón in 1411.


So, no, in the Middle Ages Portugal was not the poor little fellow who survived annexation by pure luck or miracle and was invaded ever now and then and only royal marriages or the Pope could save it. The only serious treat to Portuguese independence by Castille after it's foundation was in 1384 (and that's one invasion in 250 years), and it happened when Portugal was going through a Civil War. That one did not go away because of the Pope or a royal marriage, or sheer luck. Portugal did make a lot happen with diplomacy throughout the ages, that's true, but this one was won by military brilliancy. (Check The Holly Constable, Nuno Álvares Pereira).

 

[benice1234]

The Portuguese-English alliance is the longest lasting alliance in all of history. Formed in the late 1300's, so Portugal had some big friends, me thinks.

Also, that alliance still exists to this day.

 

[Camara]

It makes sense to have an Iberia/Hispania, it was something in the minds of the iberian rulers specially in the early EU III period.

Calling it Spain, however, is tricky because of the conotation that that word gained after its pan-iberian meaning was lost. But having two formable tags, one for Spain and another for "Iberia", is too much of a complication. I think simply making a Spain without Portugal works well, and allows better historical outcomes.

The "weakness" of Portugal compared to Castile/Spain, for several circunstances, is a myth. For some reason or another Castile was never in a position to quickly and easily conquer Portugal.
In the early middle ages the differences weren't that great in the power of the several christian states (note that even the unified Kingdom of Leon-Castille under Urraca was not scary enough for Queen Teresa of a tiny Portugal to DOW and go invading around). And of course Castile wouldn't invade Portugal just because.
Later when Castile blobs Portugal gets an empire backed up by a very powerful armada, keeping away any chance of military invasion. This empire and naval power was also the reason why Portugal was so carefuly treated by Philip in a personal union. Portugal wasn't just a rectangle with a small population.
After the Portuguese Restoration War Spain never cared about annexing Portugal seriously (but it kept surfacing here and there for them), of course also because Portugal's main ally was called Britain .

 

[PiriReis]

- Arabia (Najd+ Oman + Hedjaz + Jemen + Haasa)
- Al Andalus or Caliphate of Cordoba (Maghreb + Iberia)
- Iberia (Portugal + Spain)

Would like to see these

 

[Dafool]

Well, that statement makes no sense. The county of Portugal was granted as a fiefdom to Henri de Bourgogne in the XI century, jointly with the hand of Tareja Jimenez (the king's illegitimate daughter). It was subject to the King of Castille, Leon & Galicia (Alfonso VI). When Alfonso VI died (1109), the ambition of Henri allied him with Afonso I of Aragon in order to subdue Urraca, the heiress of Alfonso VI (who was Henri sister-in-law and Afonso of Aragon wife curiously). Henri died in that war (1112), but Tareja continued to pursue her late husband's ambition. She was in fact recognized as Queen by Pope Paschal II because of her defence of the county of Coimbra against a Moorish invasion. She was captured, however, (around 1120) by her sister Urraca's army, forcing her to break a peace keeping Portugal as a county and fiefdom from Léon.

Things got a bit agitated when Urraca died and her son Afonso VII assumed the throne. But the status quo was soon established in 1127. However, her son Afonso, would become the polarizing figure of resistance against Galician and Leonese interference in Portugal, and at a very young age was urged by must of the nobility and clergy to take up arms in pursue of his father's ambition of creating an independent realm. He dethroned his mother in 1128 and styled himself Duke of Portugal.

Afonso then preceded to vanquish in battle the invading army of Afonso VII of Leon (so no it was not nearly absorbed). After which he styled himself Prince of Portugal.

You're not really disproving what I said. You're only giving more detail. It's only after a war with Leon, in which they tried to return Portugal to a fief rather than a kingdom, that Portugal gains actual independence. Even you've admitted that the Portuguese were continually challenged by Leon, Castille, and Galicia over Portugal's status.

Preposterous affirmation. Afonso most certainly pledge vassalage to the Holly See (in 1143 I believe) in a diplomatic move to grant the pope's recognition. (Similiar to what other kingdoms had done in the past, such as Aragon or Sicily). Technically all Chrstian Kings were vassals of the Pope. To so declare meant that you had no other overlord, that you were a direct vassal of the Holy See, hence an independent realm. Also, you couldn't rule anything in the XII century without the Pope's approval. It was necessary both for external and internal politics. To be recognized by the church was an important step but it guaranteed nothing. That recognition would not (and did not) keep the armies of Castille-Leon at bay.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. I had to do some searching, but the basis of your argument sounds like it was pulled from a brief sentence on wikipedia. Alfonso pledged direct vassalage to the Pope, bypassing his actual lieges in Leon. This is not what happened in Aragon or Sicily. That sentence you've referenced from wikipedia is very vague. Aragon was never promoted to a kingdom via vassalage to the church. That was established when the Iberian kingdoms were first split up following the push into Moorish lands. Similarly, Sicily became a kingdom after the Normans conquerors threw their political support behind the Anti-Pope. They never entered vassalage as Portugal did. What that sentence is likely referring to is the split of Sicily into two separate kingdoms (one Aragonese and the other French) during the War of the Vespers. One of the agreements made during this war was that Sicily should be ceded to the Papacy and then granted back to Aragon under Papal permission. This is an incredibly different set of circumstances. Many kings sought recognition and approval from the Pope and indeed politics sometimes dictated that the Pope would receive something in return for that affirmation. However, pledging loyalty to the Pope over your liege lord was not common.

In 1137 Afonso of Portugal acceded to became vassal to Leon again, because he was the heir appearant to Afonso VII who had a childless marriage (Treaty of Tui). The subsequent birth of two sons made Afonso I renounce the Treaty of Tui. Afonso of Portugal invaded Galicia in 1140 and, according to the contemporary account of the " Chronica Adefonsi imperatoris", he was forced to accede to a kind of hastilude (or tournament), which the Portuguese knights won. Afonso VII was compelled by the rules of chivalry to sign an armistice, that would became the Treaty of Zamora of 1143 in which Afonso VII of Leon & Castille recognized Afonso as the independent ruler of Portugal. If after 14 years of war Leon acceded to a peace that recognized Portugal's sovereignty I doubt it you can say it was nearly absorbed or whatever. After that both kingdoms focused on continuing the Reconquista. To the best of my knowledge there is no documented Leonese/Castillian invasion in this timeline.

As I said, Portugal's attempt to become an independent kingdom was not without conflict. When they challenged the Kings of Castille and Leon over their vassalage, wars were fought to bring Portugal back under their control as a vassal. Just because the Portuguese eventually succeeded in avoiding this fate does not mean that the events preceding that moment are excused from historical consideration.

Well, after Zamora, Urraca of Portugal (daughter of Afonso) did marry Fernando II of Leon (one of the heirs of Afonso VII). Which did not prevent Afonso of Portugal from declaring war on Léon in 1167 over some dispute concerning the city of Salamanca. Portugal conquered part of Galicia and moved against the armies of Fernando in Badajoz which ended in disaster in 1169, with the capture of Afonso of Portugal. Afonso was released on condition that he'd renounce his conquests in Galicia. So no vassalage, no talk of independence any more. It was a settled thing.

And the Papacy, after squeezing enough gold and privileges for the clergy eventually granted a Bull recognizing Afonso as King in 1179.

Once more, Portugal's independence was not de facto. It was only after several wars, a lot of invasions back and forth, and a direct pledge to the Papacy that that became both de facto and de jure true.

The inter-marriaging between the kings of Portugal, Léon, Castille, Aragón and Navarra was a normal affair to secure alliances and to strive for a political balance in the Peninsula. If they served to keep Portugal free from invasions they also served to keep Galicia and Léon free from Portuguese invasions. You always seem to consider Portugal as the little guy, but that reality did not come to be before Castille&Aragon were united in the XVI century. Even in the XV century, Castille was larger than Portugal in area, but if not equal at least not too distant from it in population and manpower. And this marriages did not grant any Iberian Kingdom perpetual peace, the conflicts and minor wars still surfaced from time to time, but everyone's main goal was the Reconquista.

I never made those claims nor did I imply that Portugal was the "little guy". What I am pointing out is that Portugal had a long history of being under Leon's and Castille's control as a de jure vassal. Like anywhere in this period, that didn't mean a whole lot in terms of relative power, but it did create a legal precedent under which Portugal could be viewed as a likely to be united under the Spanish crown.

Not quite so. In the XIV century Pedro I of Castille was murdered by his bastard half-brother Henrique de Trastamara opening the field for the wars over the throne of Castile&Léon. There were several pretenders: Fernando I of Portugal, Carlos II of Navarra, the King of Aragon and the Duke of Lancaster. It got a messy affair because there were so many parties and the war was never conclusive to neither side (and no there was no invasion of Portugal either). The Pope did mediate the peace between all these parts (which included a lot of marriages of course). So that's one war.

One of those marriages was between Infanta Beatriz of Portugal and John I of Castille (son and heir of Henrique de Trastamara). Now, by then John already had two male heirs from his previous marriage to an Aragonese Infanta, who would became one the King of Castille and the other the King of Aragon. Now, the idea was that either Ferdinand still produced a male heir or his daughter would. Even in this last scenario the crowns would not merge. John I of Castille would be father to three kings of three independent kingdoms.

Now Ferdinand of Portugal died without male heir either by him or his daughter. That raised fears that indeed the crown would be passed to one of the other sons of John of Castille. And then a Civil War issued in Portugal (the Interregnum of 1385-1387). John of Castille did invade Portugal in 1384 and was defeated at the Battle of Atoleiros. He then managed to siege Lisbon for 5 months and was defeated again. Partially because the Portuguese won the naval Battle of the Tejo, managing to supply the city. A portuguese maritime expedition conquered many ports in Galicia in that same year. Stil in 1384 John of Castille tryed to conquer Porto and was defeated at the Battle of Leça. John of Castille was defeated once more at the Battle of Trancoso in the following year 1385. In August 1385 the Portuguese won a definitive victory at Aljubarrota. And then another at Valverde in October. By the end of the year the whole country recognized the new King John I of Portugal.

The Treaty of Windsor was signed in 1386 guaranteeing the support of England. Making Castille and France powerless to conquer Portugal. (One should not forget that this succession dispute blended in the major conflict of the Hundred Years War). An armistice was signed in 1387 a renewed several times until peace was finally broke with the treaty of Ayllón in 1411.

This is what I said. Portugal's marriages into the other Iberian crowns nearly resulted in a union. Yes, like most succession wars it was a very messy affair that involved more than just the claimants. Yes, Portugal did survive and maintain its independence. However, and I'm sure I sound like a broken record, that doesn't mean that the circumstances and reasoning behind these events didn't exist.

So, no, in the Middle Ages Portugal was not the poor little fellow who survived annexation by pure luck or miracle and was invaded ever now and then and only royal marriages or the Pope could save it. The only serious treat to Portuguese independence by Castille after it's foundation was in 1384 (and that's one invasion in 250 years), and it happened when Portugal was going through a Civil War. That one did not go away because of the Pope or a royal marriage, or sheer luck. Portugal did make a lot happen with diplomacy throughout the ages, that's true, but this one was won by military brilliancy. (Check The Holly Constable, Nuno Álvares Pereira).

I'm sorry. Perhaps it's just because your Portuguese and there's some "honor" or "history" to defend, but I'm not trying to insult or belittle Portugal. However, what I am pointing out is that Portugal was just as much a part of Hispania as Castille, Leon, or Aragon. It was engaged in the same sort of dynastic and territorial struggles as the rest of them. Just because Portugal maintained its independence as the rest of these states merged does not mean Portugal was special in some way. At the beginning of the game they're just another Iberian state, another "Spain".

 

[Hugus]

Let's not forget that Portugal's emergence as an independent kingdom only happened because it was nearly absorbed into Leon. It avoided that fate by becoming a vassal of the Papal States. That in turn ended in ruin and shortly afterwards Portugal was invaded by Castille. The result was a continual string of marriages into the royal family of Castille to prevent future invasions. These marriages almost resulted in a union between Leon, Castille, and Portugal in the late 14th century. The Pope prevented this, but a succession war was still fought. During this war the House of Aviz takes Portugal's throne and things returned to the status quo.

Basically, by the time the game starts Portugal already has a few centuries of practice when it came to not being annexed by its larger neighbors. The usage of "King of the Spains" certainly implied that the Spanish monarchy desired to absorb Portugal in one way or another, as they had been trying to do for quite a while. That ambition doesn't need to have nationalistic or pan-Iberian underpinnings to exist.

Well, I'm not gonna try to turn this healthy discussion into who said what, but let me point this out. That above was the post I commented. There you state:

1. Portugal was nearly absorbed into Léon. Not true. Portugal was a part of the Kingdom of Leon&Galicia when it strove for its independence. But during the wars of Independence it was never nearly annexed. Of course there was conflict and of course there were wars, what could anyone expect: it was an independence war and Portugal had to work for it, just like any other similiar situation in history. But was not the point you were making. Portugal indeed invaded Galicia several times and managed to get recognition as an independent state from Leon.
2. You went on saying that fate was avoided because we pledged vassalage to the Pope. Maybe the timeline got lost on my enormous post, but it would be this: Armistice of Valdevez (1140), Treaty of Zamora (1143) and those mean Léon's recognition of Portugal's independence. Pledge to the Pope 1143, Bull recognizing Afonso as King 1179. So no, not true. Portugal won the war for its independence, forcing Léon to capitulate. The Pope was not the saviour here.
3. You then stated that things went to ruin when Portugal was invaded by Castille on the Portuguese Succession war. That war and the only invasion by the Castillians was in 1384 (some 250 years after), and the Portuguese won that war too.
4. You say the Pope prevented Portugal from being annexed by Castille in the Succession War of 1383-1411. I hope I made it clear that the Pope prevented Portugal (or Aragon, or Navarra) from annexing Castille in the War for the Castillian Succession in 1369-1382. So no, the Pope did not save Portugal from being annexed once more. There's two different wars there.


So yes, I was disproving much of what you stated. I believe that you post showed that you had several misconceptions about the Political history and the Balance of Power in the Iberian Peninsula prior to the 1500s. I am not defending the honor of my country, I am simply pointing out that your remarks and assumptions do not stand to scrutiny when confronted to the facts. The Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages was a terrain fertile for insurrections and country formation and there was no hegemonic or dominant state that could easily supplant the others. From its foundation in 1127 till the dawn of the Modern Age, Portugal was never nearly absorbed or annexed, nor did it have to defend itself from several invasions from Castille or other neighbours. As said, Portugal was not far even from Castille population or manpower wise. The only real danger of loosing independence was in 1384, when Portugal was going through a Civil War and Castille had the help of some French armies.

So no, come to the 1500s Portugal had not centuries of experience in avoiding annexation from its neighbours. Because prior the 1516 and union of Castille&Aragon there was never a state powerful enough in the Peninsula capable of annexing the others.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. I had to do some searching, but the basis of your argument sounds like it was pulled from a brief sentence on wikipedia. Alfonso pledged direct vassalage to the Pope, bypassing his actual lieges in Leon. This is not what happened in Aragon or Sicily. That sentence you've referenced from wikipedia is very vague. (...) This is an incredibly different set of circumstances. Many kings sought recognition and approval from the Pope and indeed politics sometimes dictated that the Pope would receive something in return for that affirmation. However, pledging loyalty to the Pope over your liege lord was not common.

Concerning that, I did check dates and such on wikipedia so I would get the details right, but I'm not sure to what sentence in wiki concerning Aragon and Sicily you are referring to. What I was making reference to is the following: Peter II of Aragon was an heir of the Hautville dynasty in the early XIII century (through some ancient line from the Counts of Barcelona me thinks); when the conflicts between the Norman rulers - a Duke of Calabria and the Count of Sicily (brothers I think) - broke out, the Pope asked Peter of Aragon the fief of Sicily, which Peter granted him (he's called the Catholic for some reason); now, the Hautevilles territories were eventually united by a single heir, which the Pope made king, because now Siccily was his fief; years after there was the mess of the Vespers, because the Pope had granted the fief to the Valois who faced local opposition; Peter III of Aragon (grandson of Peter II) took the chance to claim his dynastic rights on Sicily (and also his wife had a claim of her own right I believe), despite his grandfather decision. For that the Pope launched a crusade against Peter III. (And that's why I remember the story, 'cause the Pope launched a crusade against a Catholic king).

So that was the reference about Aragon and Sicily that I was making (quite vaguely for sure, but the post was already long enough). I dunno if the details are exactly like that, though, but the gist is there. The point was: that granting a tittle as fief to the Pope was a diplomatic move not unheard of in the Middle Ages. If there was any other in the very same circumstances as that of Portugal I couldn't say, but I guess there might not be. Perhaps I did stretch that argument there.

Just because the Portuguese eventually succeeded in avoiding this fate does not mean that the events preceding that moment are excused from historical consideration.

Dafool, I did consider them extensively. What they show is that Portugal did not survive as for some miraculous protection from the Pope like you implied. They showed that Portugal fought and won his Independence war. After which there was never the risk of becoming a vassal or being annexed till the Succession crisis of 1383-1385. So no, by that time Portugal did not had a history of centuries avoiding annexation. Portugal fought and won a war for independence and fought and won a War of Succession some 250 years later. Nothing uncommon for an European state.

And if you go after that, you'll see that the next conflict between Portugal and Castille (already in the time of EU3), was when Afonso V claimed the throne of Castille for his second wife Joanna against Isabella, married to Fernando of Aragon (the grandparents of Charles V&I). And during that time Portugal invaded and conquered much of Castille. Castille did not invaded Portugal.

"Once more, Portugal's independence was not de facto. It was only after several wars, a lot of invasions back and forth, and a direct pledge to the Papacy that that became both de facto and de jure true."

Nope, no invasion of Portugal documented in the War for independence. Portugal's independence happened de facto in 1127, as the country was not invaded, nearly annexed or absorbed or whatever. Since 1127 there was de facto an independent rule. That was recognized de jure by Leon in 1140&1143.

Portugal invaded Galicia and won the battles and gained its recognition for its independence from Léon in 1143. As said, the pledge and recognition from the Pope are ulterior and a diplomatic move necessary for other Christian kingdoms to recognize Portugal (so that our first king could get a royal bride for example) as well as for the support of the clergy and to keep the realms stability.

I never made those claims nor did I imply that Portugal was the "little guy". What I am pointing out is that Portugal had a long history of being under Leon's and Castille's control as a de jure vassal. Like anywhere in this period, that didn't mean a whole lot in terms of relative power, but it did create a legal precedent under which Portugal could be viewed as a likely to be united under the Spanish crown.

The counties of Portucale and Coimbra were established in the second half of IX century and remained vassals until early XII (some 250 years). Between 1127 and 1444 (more than 300 years) that never happened again nor was it a real risk. Now, of course the ambition might have been there. But the plausibility of it happening was not very high. The balance of power in the Peninsula was only disrupted by the union of Castille&Aragon in 1516, and then it might have been a serious threat. By then Portugal was one of the richest countries in Europe and Charles had so many pains managing his already enormous Empire it was not very probable for him to invade Portugal.

I'm sorry. Perhaps it's just because your Portuguese and there's some "honor" or "history" to defend, but I'm not trying to insult or belittle Portugal. However, what I am pointing out is that Portugal was just as much a part of Hispania as Castille, Leon, or Aragon. It was engaged in the same sort of dynastic and territorial struggles as the rest of them. Just because Portugal maintained its independence as the rest of these states merged does not mean Portugal was special in some way. At the beginning of the game they're just another Iberian state, another "Spain".

I most sincerely hope not because then we'd have a problem now, I do not dispute this, I dispute your remarks in your first post which were not correct.
Back to the topic of Spain/Hispania/Iberia and tags in EUIV. My point his: you cannot deny that Spain (or España/Espanha) has on our time gained a meaning different from the original Hispania: Spain now stands for the union of the Crowns(later States) of Iberia minus Portugal. If the idea would be to allow the in-game recreation of the Empire of All Spains, in my opinion Spain is not the best choice for a name: you either resort to the Latin (Hispania) or to Iberia. I prefer Hispania.


I am sorry about the length. Tried to make it a shorter one. Well, that resulted just fine...

 

[WeissRaben]

I most sincerely hope not because then we'd have a problem now, I do not dispute this, I dispute your remarks in your first post which were not correct.
Back to the topic of Spain/Hispania/Iberia and tags in EUIV. My point his: you cannot deny that Spain (or España/Espanha) has on our time gained a meaning different from the original Hispania: Spain now stands for the union of the Crowns(later States) of Iberia minus Portugal. If the idea would be to allow the in-game recreation of the Empire of All Spains, in my opinion Spain is not the best choice for a name: you either resort to the Latin (Hispania) or to Iberia. I prefer Hispania.

Can't see why, though. That NOW Spain means Castile + Leon + Aragon means little for a game starting in 1444. Ideally, the Portuguese King and the Castillian Queen could marry and, later on, the nation could be named Spain. And in time, the peninsula would be formed of Spain and Aragon, with an Aragonese arguing on these forums that Spain stands for the union of the Crowns (later States) of Iberia minus Aragon so you need a different name.

 

[Hugus]

Can't see why, though. That NOW Spain means Castile + Leon + Aragon means little for a game starting in 1444. Ideally, the Portuguese King and the Castillian Queen could marry and, later on, the nation could be named Spain. And in time, the peninsula would be formed of Spain and Aragon, with an Aragonese arguing on these forums that Spain stands for the union of the Crowns (later States) of Iberia minus Aragon so you need a different name.

And perhaps I sadly wouldn't be able to understand the righteousness of their complaint Well it matters what Spain has meant for the last 500 years, since it covers pretty much the whole game time-frame. And it matters because players are from nowadays. Spain is a word that has a meaning not compatible with the tag we would like to see created in EUIV, namely, it's meaning does not cover the whole of the Peninsula. So if its meaning does not imply the state we are discussing and, what's more, its meaning also concerns another political entity that can be formed in the game, i for one do not agree to it being used to describe an Empire encompassing the whole Peninsula. But that's my point of view.

 

[brifbates]

While I enjoy forming nations as much as the next guy, I think it would be better to err on the side of too few than too many. This assumes that the benefits for forming a nation remain fairly strong.

There should be a certain minimal power level required for any formation that is significantly higher than 3-4 provinces as some of the suggestions here in this thread. Owning 3 provinces allows a free slider move or two, 6 free cores, and other benefits? That is pretty laughable IMO. Any formation should require 60% (at a minimum) of the applicable cores be owned or already cored; much more an acknowledgement that an entity exists than a mechanism to push the player's expansionist agenda.

 

[Mr Tex]

While I enjoy forming nations as much as the next guy, I think it would be better to err on the side of too few than too many. This assumes that the benefits for forming a nation remain fairly strong.

There should be a certain minimal power level required for any formation that is significantly higher than 3-4 provinces as some of the suggestions here in this thread. Owning 3 provinces allows a free slider move or two, 6 free cores, and other benefits? That is pretty laughable IMO. Any formation should require 60% (at a minimum) of the applicable cores be owned or already cored; much more an acknowledgement that an entity exists than a mechanism to push the player's expansionist agenda.

Well it was like that in Eu3 I believe and I know its like this in CK2.
I agree that to many formable nations is obnoxious but, I like forming one nation, tag switching and forming another nation and then declare war on the other nation and having them battle it out to see who would win in a fight. Like my HRE vs. Russia vs. Italy vs. Great Britain vs. Spain vs. Scandinavia vs. France game. Now granted I did cheat to have them all be formed in a timely manner but the complete epicness was absolutely amazing!

But I digress, I think the whole Eu series and even Vicky2, and CK2, are both as much about historical accuracy as it is about ahistorical possibilities. I don't to see the AI be able to have Saxony take over half of Europe, but I would like to see the ability of being able to have Rome or a Europa be formable just for fun.

As for the Iberia argument, cant everyone agree to disagree?

 

[benice1234]

Yeah, I don't play PDS games to simulate history-- if I wanted to simulate history I would just watch a documentary. :glare:

 

[Dafool]

1. Portugal was nearly absorbed into Léon. Not true. Portugal was a part of the Kingdom of Leon&Galicia when it strove for its independence. But during the wars of Independence it was never nearly annexed. Of course there was conflict and of course there were wars, what could anyone expect: it was an independence war and Portugal had to work for it, just like any other similiar situation in history. But was not the point you were making. Portugal indeed invaded Galicia several times and managed to get recognition as an independent state from Leon.

Portugal was a vassal of Leon and Galicia. A county that is a vassal of a kingdom is essentially an autonomous province of said kingdom. Several conflicts were fought against Portugal to maintain that status. So yes, Portugal nearly was absorbed back into Leon and Galicia. You can argue semantics, but it doesn't change the reality: In the 12th century, Portugal was a constituent state that achieved independence, not an independent state that maintained independence.

2. You went on saying that fate was avoided because we pledged vassalage to the Pope. Maybe the timeline got lost on my enormous post, but it would be this: Armistice of Valdevez (1140), Treaty of Zamora (1143) and those mean Léon's recognition of Portugal's independence. Pledge to the Pope 1143, Bull recognizing Afonso as King 1179. So no, not true. Portugal won the war for its independence, forcing Léon to capitulate. The Pope was not the saviour here.

You're giving very vague explanations of what those dates mean. Valdevez means almost nothing, as it was merely an armistice between the Portuguese and Leon. The Treaty of Zamora, which happened after Portugal pledged fealty to the Papacy is the first time that Leon recognized Portugal as a kingdom and they formed this treaty under Papal supervision. This basically confirmed Portugal's status as a kingdom under Papal protection for the time being. However, we must remember that this was political recognition and didn't necessarily have much legal meaning. Therefore without the Papacy formally acknowledging Portugal as a kingdom, Portugal's neighbors could rescind on that term with relative ease. That peace failed and Leon and Portugal again went to war in the late 1160's. However, close familial ties and war with the Moors meant that the Portuguese were given relatively light terms of surrender. About a decade later, the Papacy issued the papal bull making Portugal a de jure kingdom, citing most specifically their efforts against the Moors and their conflicts with their former lieges in Leon and Galicia as justification.

3. You then stated that things went to ruin when Portugal was invaded by Castille on the Portuguese Succession war. That war and the only invasion by the Castillians was in 1384 (some 250 years after), and the Portuguese won that war too.

I did not state that. You need to read my post again. I said that the Portugal's vassalage to the Papacy ended in ruin, as much of the 13th century is filled with strife between the crown and the church in Portugal. During that same period Portugal was invaded by Castille and new borders were arranged. It's around this time that Portugal and Castille become heavily intermarried, which set the stage for the issues of succession that happened in the 14th century. So please don't misrepresent what I said.

4. You say the Pope prevented Portugal from being annexed by Castille in the Succession War of 1383-1411. I hope I made it clear that the Pope prevented Portugal (or Aragon, or Navarra) from annexing Castille in the War for the Castillian Succession in 1369-1382. So no, the Pope did not save Portugal from being annexed once more. There's two different wars there.

I think you're dodging facts here, not to mention that you're once more misrepresenting what I've said. Those two conflicts were hardly separate and there was only a very brief hiatus when the Pope intervened to prevent the union. Following that, the war resumed with little having been changed. Even then, I never said that Portugal would have annexed. I said it would have entered a union with Castille and Leon, that it was invaded, and that its royal house changed. These are all facts.

So yes, I was disproving much of what you stated. I believe that you post showed that you had several misconceptions about the Political history and the Balance of Power in the Iberian Peninsula prior to the 1500s. I am not defending the honor of my country, I am simply pointing out that your remarks and assumptions do not stand to scrutiny when confronted to the facts. The Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages was a terrain fertile for insurrections and country formation and there was no hegemonic or dominant state that could easily supplant the others. From its foundation in 1127 till the dawn of the Modern Age, Portugal was never nearly absorbed or annexed, nor did it have to defend itself from several invasions from Castille or other neighbours. As said, Portugal was not far even from Castille population or manpower wise. The only real danger of loosing independence was in 1384, when Portugal was going through a Civil War and Castille had the help of some French armies.

I think you're misrepresenting Portuguese history by downplaying its conflicts with its neighbors. The fact of the matter is that Portugal was heavily involved in Iberian politics, was involved in a number of wars, invaded and was invaded several times, changed from a vassal of Leon to a vassal of the Pope to an independent kingdom, and eventually managed to maintain its overall independence from its neighbors. You can't pretend that Portugal's independence was achieve overnight or that Portugal's neighbors were impotent. That's a poor representation of how Portugal (and the other Iberian states) evolved.

So no, come to the 1500s Portugal had not centuries of experience in avoiding annexation from its neighbours. Because prior the 1516 and union of Castille&Aragon there was never a state powerful enough in the Peninsula capable of annexing the others.

It seems like you're mixing up terms like "annex", "union", and "vassal". There are different ways in which Portugal was threatened. Few if any of them involved the possibility of full annexation. However, the 12th century was dominated by Portugal trying to gain legal recognition as a kingdom. This is when the possibility of Portugal being subjugated by Leon or reverted to a county still existed. In the 13th century Portugal was ravaged by continual religious and dynastic strife, and the latter part of the 14th century was dominated Portugal's involvement in succession wars in Iberia. At that point Portugal's independence as a kingdom was more or less assured, but the chance of it entering a union with its neighbors increased drastically. Basically, there were several opportunities where Portugal's independence could have been threatened in one way or another. Your conclusion that this was only a possibility after 1516 is ridiculous, as you have admitted that Portugal came close to being united with Castille and Leon not long before the game starts.

Concerning that, I did check dates and such on wikipedia so I would get the details right, but I'm not sure to what sentence in wiki concerning Aragon and Sicily you are referring to. What I was making reference to is the following: Peter II of Aragon was an heir of the Hautville dynasty in the early XIII century (through some ancient line from the Counts of Barcelona me thinks); when the conflicts between the Norman rulers - a Duke of Calabria and the Count of Sicily (brothers I think) - broke out, the Pope asked Peter of Aragon the fief of Sicily, which Peter granted him (he's called the Catholic for some reason); now, the Hautevilles territories were eventually united by a single heir, which the Pope made king, because now Siccily was his fief; years after there was the mess of the Vespers, because the Pope had granted the fief to the Valois who faced local opposition; Peter III of Aragon (grandson of Peter II) took the chance to claim his dynastic rights on Sicily (and also his wife had a claim of her own right I believe), despite his grandfather decision. For that the Pope launched a crusade against Peter III. (And that's why I remember the story, 'cause the Pope launched a crusade against a Catholic king).

So that was the reference about Aragon and Sicily that I was making (quite vaguely for sure, but the post was already long enough). I dunno if the details are exactly like that, though, but the gist is there. The point was: that granting a tittle as fief to the Pope was a diplomatic move not unheard of in the Middle Ages. If there was any other in the very same circumstances as that of Portugal I couldn't say, but I guess there might not be. Perhaps I did stretch that argument there.

You've more or less described what I said. I guessed that you were referencing wikipedia because that is the only place I could find such a claim as you've described it. The situation of the French and Aragonese in Sicily was not a case of a state declaring its vassalage to the Pope. Instead one of those states ceded territory to the Pope so that it could be legally distributed rather than illegally conquered. Frankly put, this situation was very different and I do not think we can really relate the to what happened in Portugal, especially given that these events are separated by a good deal of time.

Dafool, I did consider them extensively. What they show is that Portugal did not survive as for some miraculous protection from the Pope like you implied. They showed that Portugal fought and won his Independence war. After which there was never the risk of becoming a vassal or being annexed till the Succession crisis of 1383-1385. So no, by that time Portugal did not had a history of centuries avoiding annexation. Portugal fought and won a war for independence and fought and won a War of Succession some 250 years later. Nothing uncommon for an European state.

And if you go after that, you'll see that the next conflict between Portugal and Castille (already in the time of EU3), was when Afonso V claimed the throne of Castille for his second wife Joanna against Isabella, married to Fernando of Aragon (the grandparents of Charles V&I). And during that time Portugal invaded and conquered much of Castille. Castille did not invaded Portugal.

I'm sorry, but you're an overly literal interpretation of events. You seen eager to admit that Portugal was heavily involved in Iberian politics and wars, but still propose that Portugal was never actually in any danger. While I'll admit, as I did earlier, that the complete annihilation of the Portuguese state was highly unlikely, it's quite possible that Portugal could have entered a union earlier than it did and it is very hard to say how things would have evolved from there. Basically, my point is that you're relying on hindsight, our knowledge that Portugal survived any and all attempts to be united with the other Iberian states, to explain the why and how Portugal manged that.

Nope, no invasion of Portugal documented in the War for independence. Portugal's independence happened de facto in 1127, as the country was not invaded, nearly annexed or absorbed or whatever. Since 1127 there was de facto an independent rule. That was recognized de jure by Leon in 1140&1143.

I think you're loosely using the term de facto and de jure. Portugal's de facto independence was achieved in the 12 century, but it's next to impossible to link it to a single event or treaty. De facto, by definition, refers to the reality of a situation, not the way it is presented on paper. In the 12th century there was a reluctance by Portugal's neighbors to accept her independence from Leon. The closest you might get to establishing a moment when de facto independence from Leon was assured is when Ferdinand II captured Afonso. At that point Portugal was not yet legally recognized as a kingdom by the Papacy and Ferdinand could have possibly tried to force Portugal to become a vassal once more. While that surely would not have been the end of Portugal's quest for independence from Leon, it would still have been a major political setback. As for de jure independence, that was clearly established in the the papal bull of 1179. A treaty with Leon may have established standing between those two states, but to legally become a kingdom and declare its independence, Portugal needed international approval, which meant the Papacy had to confirm the new title.

Portugal invaded Galicia and won the battles and gained its recognition for its independence from Léon in 1143. As said, the pledge and recognition from the Pope are ulterior and a diplomatic move necessary for other Christian kingdoms to recognize Portugal (so that our first king could get a royal bride for example) as well as for the support of the clergy and to keep the realms stability.

It was surely a political move, but one in which Portugal traded one liege for another. While it was clearly a prudent political move, it did have tangible effects on Portugal. The power of the Church increased drastically in that period and as a result much of Portugal's history in the 13th century has to do with conflicts between the crown and the church.

The counties of Portucale and Coimbra were established in the second half of IX century and remained vassals until early XII (some 250 years). Between 1127 and 1444 (more than 300 years) that never happened again nor was it a real risk. Now, of course the ambition might have been there. But the plausibility of it happening was not very high. The balance of power in the Peninsula was only disrupted by the union of Castille&Aragon in 1516, and then it might have been a serious threat. By then Portugal was one of the richest countries in Europe and Charles had so many pains managing his already enormous Empire it was not very probable for him to invade Portugal.

I think you are mixing up what I'm saying. I said that Portugal was a vassal of Leon for much of its earlier existence. Obviously that ceased, as I've explained several time over. However, there is a big difference between its relevance 10 years afterwards and 200 years afterwards. My comments were related to the 12th century mostly, when that transition to independence was still tenuous. I didn't imply that it makes Portugal a vassal in the 15th century. What I did say is that Portugal's former vassalage to Leon and the near union of Portugal with Castille and Leon would present a precedent for later attempts to unite Spain and Portugal.

I most sincerely hope not because then we'd have a problem now, I do not dispute this, I dispute your remarks in your first post which were not correct.
Back to the topic of Spain/Hispania/Iberia and tags in EUIV. My point his: you cannot deny that Spain (or España/Espanha) has on our time gained a meaning different from the original Hispania: Spain now stands for the union of the Crowns(later States) of Iberia minus Portugal. If the idea would be to allow the in-game recreation of the Empire of All Spains, in my opinion Spain is not the best choice for a name: you either resort to the Latin (Hispania) or to Iberia. I prefer Hispania

And my response is this: When Spain, or the "Kingdom of All the Spains", was formed, Portugal's existence relative to that state was not clear. Only after maintaining independence in the long run did Portugal become explicitly excluded from the term "Spain". Because that exclusion is a relatively modern notion, there is no reason to treat the Spanish formation process as distinctly different from the rest of the formations in EU3 and EU4. We can't exclude Austria from Germany just because it maintained independence throughout most of the modern period. Changing the name would be no different, as Hispania is a direct synonym for Spain and Iberia was not used in this period as a political notion. Spain is clearly the most logical and historic name we could choose, even if its modern connotations differ somewhat.

 

[Mr Tex]

Yeah, I don't play PDS games to simulate history-- if I wanted to simulate history I would just watch a documentary. :glare:

Exactly, sometimes I want to see if I am able to do as well as the actual nation did historically or even see if I could do better, but over all I just play for fun.

 

[Hugus]

In the 12th century, Portugal was a constituent state that achieved independence, not an independent state that maintained independence.

Oh boy, my English must really suck. That was precisely what I said.

So yes, Portugal nearly was absorbed back into Leon and Galicia. You can argue semantics, but it doesn't change the reality.

Please do not play with semantics yourself. It is obvious that striving to create an independent state was difficult, did no happen overnight, involved a great deal of wars and the status of independence could be considered secure for some decades to come. That I have stated of my own accord several time or acknowledged when you so said. So I can't see why you insist on it throughout your reply, since there is no disagreement there. What I explained several times over is this: when you say Portugal was nearly absorbed back that is incorrect, untrue, unsupported by any fact and in no way contradictory to my previous remark. Using that expression clearly says that at some point in its struggle for independence Portugal almost failed, was near the disaster (and then that the Pope was the one who saved our independence). That is not playing with semantics; that is what was clearly implied. And regardless of the fact things might very well have evolved that way, that was not the case. Portugal was military superior to Léon and won the war. It was 14 years of struggle during which there was no point at which the Portuguese cause was nearly lost. There was no invasion of Portugal, there was no major defeat, etc. Now, does that make the cause absolutely secure from day one: of course not. That was not what how you put, though, and that was also not what I was contesting. Hope that is clear now.

You're giving very vague explanations of what those dates mean. Valdevez means almost nothing, as it was merely an armistice between the Portuguese and Leon. The Treaty of Zamora, which happened after Portugal pledged fealty to the Papacy is the first time that Leon recognized Portugal as a kingdom and they formed this treaty under Papal supervision. This basically confirmed Portugal's status as a kingdom under Papal protection for the time being.

By all means, I can continue to make my replies ever bigger. The military expedition of Valdevez was a big deal, since the armistice that Afonso VII signed in 1140 was successively prorogated until the definite Treaty was signed in 1143. Do not take it personally, but I suspect your only source for this argument might be wikipedia. I do not have access to my family's library where I'm staying these couple of weeks, but I can later get you some titles on this issue, if you'd like. I can tell you that both José Mattoso and Fortunato de Almeida would be great choices for detailed information on this period. The treaty did not happen after Portugal pledge fealty to the Pope: that's false. I don't know what you are trying to imply with Papal supervision there, so I'll guess that the wiki page may not be very accurate on that. As far as I remember Zamora happened because the Archbishop of Braga (The Primaz of All Spains) and ally of Afonso of Portugal managed to arrange it. At the table there was a cardinal legate from Rome, if that's what you mean. If you believe that to be an extraordinary event or the sign of anything ulterior, you might wanna research how many peace treaties were conducted through Papal mediation (not supervision). And I'm not trying to play with semantics: words do have meanings and implications when used. It was a three-way treaty in which Léon and Portugal tried to arrange their affairs, but the Church would not back it unless she could take advantage of it (naturally). So, in order to gain the support of Rome in the negotiations (and in the future) a clause was entered in the treaty itself having Afonso pledge vassalage to the Pope. In Zamora, Léon recognized both the kingship and the independence of Portugal and Rome did the same, provided Portugal paid tribute. Those are the articles of the treaty, not an opinion of mine. I suspect there might be some copy of the Treaty available on-line if you wish to confirm that. So your last sentence there is quite accurate, but then you go on with something of a non-sensical and contradictory thesis (if I understood you correctly); let's see.

However, we must remember that this was political recognition and didn't necessarily have much legal meaning. Therefore without the Papacy formally acknowledging Portugal as a kingdom, Portugal's neighbors could rescind on that term with relative ease.

To affirm that a Peace Treaty (which is a legally binding contract per se), that was signed, confirmed and put into practice is some kind of a political juggle that doesn't have legal meaning: that is preposterous. Treaties are always eventually broken. This one was recognized and enforced for 25 years, which hardly makes it void. (You might wanna check the average duration of these treaties, you'll find this one is not the exception). Your attempt to dismiss Zamora as a mere political juggle with little consequence is, in my humble opinion, the confirmation that your understanding of this events is not solid. And as I've aforementioned Rome did acknowledge both the Kingship and the independence in Zamora. Now, the Bull confirming it only came in 1179, that is true. Which is easily understandable, as the Papacy was making Afonso sweat a bit and granted more privileges to the Church.

Now I'm not saying everything was easy by then. But Portugal won the war, the kingship and the independence. Had 25 years of peace to expand south. Alfonso managed to marry into the House of Savoy and to marry his heir with the daughter of the king of Aragon and his eldest daughter with the King of Castille. (All that before the Papal Bull). So yeah, really the recognition of Portugal was quite on the way after Zamora.

That peace failed and Leon and Portugal again went to war in the late 1160's. However, close familial ties and war with the Moors meant that the Portuguese were given relatively light terms of surrender.

Since you say that the Peace of Zamora failed, you imply that the War for independence was resumed in 1169, that Léon once again threatened Portugal's indpendence. You further state Portugal surrendered and was given light terms. All this, in one way or another, is either untrue or misleading. I already explained this war to you, but will do so again. Portugal declared war on Leon in 1169, not the contrary. The causus belli was a dispute over Salamanca, we would obviously not start a war over our already achieved independence. Can you acknowledge the sense in that please? Portugal invaded Léon (namely Galicia), not the contrary. Portugal lost a major Battle in Badajoz and Afonso of Portugal was captured. Now, Portugal held a great deal of Galicia and Léon held our king. Peace was made on the returning to status quo ante bellum: Portugal renounced its claim on Salamanca, retreated from Galicia and Afonso went free. In my book that is not a surrender (in game it would be a white peace), but interpret it as you wish. The facts were those and it was not a war for independence.

Further Fernando of Leon was very ambitious to have himself recognized as Emperor, if he could have forced vassalage on Portugal he would have done so, despite family ties. This line that Portugal got off easily because of this and that, the marriages, the Pope, the Moors, is kind of misrepresenting. After a war that ended quite disastrously for Afonso as with the other conflicts (namely the War of independence), Portugal asserted himself by armed forced and due to Afonso's military brilliance. Now all the other factors can't obviously just be dismissed. Reality is always a complex mesh of causes and effects, and several factor have their weight and pull. But your storytelling belittles the essential and aggrandizes the accessory.

I did not state that. You need to read my post again. I said that the Portugal's vassalage to the Papacy ended in ruin, as much of the 13th century is filled with strife between the crown and the church in Portugal. During that same period Portugal was invaded by Castille and new borders were arranged. It's around this time that Portugal and Castille become heavily intermarried, which set the stage for the issues of succession that happened in the 14th century. So please don't misrepresent what I said.

I understood you "That ended in ruins", as refering to Portugal's independence. So, my apologies for having misunderstood your point there. Relations between Portugal and the Holly See did go through a very rough path in the XIII century. That couldn't be more correct.

However what you go on to say is to the best of my knowledge false. So please be so kind as to point to a reference where that is stated, because I am unaware of such an invasion in the XIII century. There was no conflict with Castille during the reign of Afonso II that I know of. A minor one with Léon I believe that ended very quickly on account of the Batle of Navas de Tolosa (might wanna check that one, quite a piece of military history). In the reign of Sancho II the situation with the Church deteriorated and a Civil war ensued as the Pope instigated the King's brother to take the crown. Now, during that Civil war a Castillian army "invaded" twice to support King Sancho II against is brother. It was not an conquering invasion, it was not a war with Castille, and there was no border changes after the Civil War that I can recall. The King's brother eventually won the throne and reigned as Afonso III.

Now, Afonso III finished the conquest of the Algarve (1249) and there was a diplomatic dispute with Castille over it. He married a Castillian Infanta (1253) daughter of Afonso X, the Wise, of Castille. The issue was settled for the time being. There was a little bellic conflict some years after (I have no knowledge of any invasion here) and the Treaty of Badajoz was signed (1267): Castille renounced their claim on the Algarve. The borders stayed unchanged. The Infanta brought an inheritance of territory of considerable size on the left margin of the Guadiana river years after, when Afonso X died. So that's one border change.

The borders did change in 1297 by the Treaty of Alcanizes, under the reign of Dinis I of Portugal. There was a minor conflict prior to it, but no invasion documented that I am aware of. In fact there was not a vicotr or vanquished there. As far as I recall, the Treaty called for some land permutation so that the borders would reflect the natural geography and be, theefore, beneficial to both parties. Portugal did lose some lands in the southern border, but gained others in the northern one.

So if that's the border changes you were referring to, no invasion associated. I'm curious though as to this invasion of Castille in the XIII century, because I honestly never heard of it.

I think you're dodging facts here, not to mention that you're once more misrepresenting what I've said. Those two conflicts were hardly separate and there was only a very brief hiatus when the Pope intervened to prevent the union. Following that, the war resumed with little having been changed. Even then, I never said that Portugal would have annexed. I said it would have entered a union with Castille and Leon, that it was invaded, and that its royal house changed. These are all facts.

No dodging, no misrepresentation. You said ipsis verbis:

"These marriages almost resulted in a union between Leon, Castille, and Portugal in the late 14th century. The Pope prevented this, but a succession war was still fought. During this war the House of Aviz takes Portugal's throne and things returned to the status quo."

By the last sentence you make it clear you are referring to the War of 1384-1411. Which was fought to prevent a union between Portugal and Castille&Léon. Which the Pope did not in any way prevent. I explained this extensively already. I am sorry, but bou misconception of the actions and implications of Papal policies in the political affairs of the Peninsula is staggering. The Pope did not prevent, the war or the union. Fact. Portugal once again fought and won a war. Fact. That prevented a union. Fact. For details please refer to my previous posts.

Those two conflicts were as separated as they could be! They were different wars, with different causus belli, with different players, with different reasons, with different outcomes. Just because they were subsequent, that the first influenced the second as any prior event influences its following, you making a big mess of two different wars and dodging facts saying that they were related.

First war (there were three successive wars actually): over the throne of Castille, fought by Portugal, Navarra, Aragon, the Duke of Lencaster and the Trastamara bastard. That was the one mediated by the Pope at a certain point. That was a clear victory for the Trastamara dynasty.
Second war: over the throne of Portugal, fought between the bastard of Avis and the now ruling House of Trastamara of Castille. Not mediated by the Pope. The Aviz bastard won the war. Castille eventually recognized him in 1411. (Tretay of Ayllon).

Might I remember you that that first statement I transcribed above implies that the Pope once more prevented Portugal from loosing it's independence in the War of Succession to the Portuguese throne in which the House of Aviz won. Since the Pope mediated another war and Portugal had to fight and win that war that you speak off to keep its independence your remark was completely inaccurate and misrepresenting. Understand if you will, I've covered that one point quite thoroughly.

I think you're misrepresenting Portuguese history by downplaying its conflicts with its neighbors. The fact of the matter is that Portugal was heavily involved in Iberian politics, was involved in a number of wars, invaded and was invaded several times, changed from a vassal of Leon to a vassal of the Pope to an independent kingdom, and eventually managed to maintain its overall independence from its neighbors. You can't pretend that Portugal's independence was achieve overnight or that Portugal's neighbors were impotent. That's a poor representation of how Portugal (and the other Iberian states) evolved.

That overall appreciation of yours does not find support in my own anterior posts, and they stand there for others to judge. In no place did I downplay the importance of the strifes and struggles between the Iberic kingdoms in their history. I am sorry to say that I portrayed those wars far more accurately than you did. What I downplayed was your initial impliance of Portugal surviving almost as a miracle and always because the Pope prevented it from being reabsorbed, or annexed, or united. Portugal's neighbours were pretty much impotent to do any of this things, because their relative forces were quite balanced. And you lack of understanding of this Medieval balance of power in the Peninsula is precluding you from a better judgement.

Wars were important, Portugal won and lost, it formed and forged him and his neighbours. Correct and true. Did I ever refuted that: no. What did I refute in my posts then? Was Portugal ever invaded between 1127 and 1384? No it was not, and I'll be waiting for you to point me to a source that says otherwise. Was Portugal ever endangered of loosing its independence during those Medieval conflicts? No it was not. I've covered this extensively and you yourself recognized that much in this last reply.

It seems like you're mixing up terms like "annex", "union", and "vassal". There are different ways in which Portugal was threatened. Few if any of them involved the possibility of full annexation. However, the 12th century was dominated by Portugal trying to gain legal recognition as a kingdom. This is when the possibility of Portugal being subjugated by Leon or reverted to a county still existed. In the 13th century Portugal was ravaged by continual religious and dynastic strife, and the latter part of the 14th century was dominated Portugal's involvement in succession wars in Iberia. At that point Portugal's independence as a kingdom was more or less assured, but the chance of it entering a union with its neighbors increased drastically. Basically, there were several opportunities where Portugal's independence could have been threatened in one way or another. Your conclusion that this was only a possibility after 1516 is ridiculous, as you have admitted that Portugal came close to being united with Castille and Leon not long before the game starts.

They are different ways that result in one same conclusion: loss of independence. And as that was always the point in discussion, the means by which it might have happened were irrelevant to the statement I was making. Portugal had a eventful Medieval history, has had his neighbours. What I tried to explain is that: many of those conflicts were never a threat to Portugal's sovereignty or independence due to the conflict's scope and dimension and that those few that were Portugal did manage to win the milliatry confrontation without endangering its position. Proof of that, once again: Portugal was never invaded. Now the exception to this that I clearly considered so in my posts was the war of 1383-1411.

Of course there were opportunities for things to have gone into a sourer path, they didn't. And what you knowledge seems to failed to grasp is Portugal's neighbours conditions, internal problems, other fights and wars and their relative power and strengh. That made the balance of power in the Peninsula. And the exception of 1384's invasion results from Portugal being in a Civil War and France sending armies to to reforce Castille. That upset the Balance, which made that moment the one true threat there ever was to Portugal's sovereignty and independence. Not before, nor after until 1516 was there any other such moment. Granted Portugal might had loss more territory or gained more in those disputes and wars. But my only point was the threat to independence.

You've more or less described what I said. I guessed that you were referencing wikipedia because that is the only place I could find such a claim as you've described it. The situation of the French and Aragonese in Sicily was not a case of a state declaring its vassalage to the Pope. Instead one of those states ceded territory to the Pope so that it could be legally distributed rather than illegally conquered. Frankly put, this situation was very different and I do not think we can really relate the to what happened in Portugal, especially given that these events are separated by a good deal of time.

Granted, the situations were different. I've been reading a bit on that. I had some notion of it, I think because of a paper I had to write a couple of years ago on the Aragonese expansion in the Mediterranean. I came across that info but it not interested me for the angle I was exploring for so I didn't research any further on it.

I'm sorry, but you're an overly literal interpretation of events. You seen eager to admit that Portugal was heavily involved in Iberian politics and wars, but still propose that Portugal was never actually in any danger. While I'll admit, as I did earlier, that the complete annihilation of the Portuguese state was highly unlikely, it's quite possible that Portugal could have entered a union earlier than it did and it is very hard to say how things would have evolved from there. Basically, my point is that you're relying on hindsight, our knowledge that Portugal survived any and all attempts to be united with the other Iberian states, to explain the why and how Portugal managed that.

The danger of loosing its independence was always clearly stated as the topic in discussion and I maintain that between 1143 and 1384 and after that until 1516 there was never a real danger of that coming to pass. Well, Portugal could have entered a union earlier? As far as I'm aware there was never any moment that the heir to the Portuguese Crown was a foreign monarch before 1384 or after that (until 1580 obviously). Well, all the heirs might have died or not been born, or the war for independence had failed, or the French might have blobbed in the Peninsula, or the Moors regain moment and conquer it all again.

What you consider hindsight I believe it's an analysis of the facts. In my humble opinion you resort to speculation to compensate for your lack of knowledge on the matter in discussion. And I am not putting myself on any expert level here.

I think you're loosely using the term de facto and de jure. Portugal's de facto independence was achieved in the 12 century, but it's next to impossible to link it to a single event or treaty. De facto, by definition, refers to the reality of a situation, not the way it is presented on paper. In the 12th century there was a reluctance by Portugal's neighbors to accept her independence from Leon. The closest you might get to establishing a moment when de facto independence from Leon was assured is when Ferdinand II captured Afonso. At that point Portugal was not yet legally recognized as a kingdom by the Papacy and Ferdinand could have possibly tried to force Portugal to become a vassal once more. While that surely would not have been the end of Portugal's quest for independence from Leon, it would still have been a major political setback. As for de jure independence, that was clearly established in the the papal bull of 1179. A treaty with Leon may have established standing between those two states, but to legally become a kingdom and declare its independence, Portugal needed international approval, which meant the Papacy had to confirm the new title.

Afonso ruled the country without any force preventing it from doing so from 1127 onwards, regardless of others recognizing him or not. He ruled in the land, the clergy recognized, the people obeyed, the nobles fought with him, he passed laws, and edicts. He ruled in reality so he ruled de facto. He was legally and internationally recognized as such ruler by both the claimant King of Leon and the Pope in 1143 in the Zamora Treaty. So that was when he became king on paper, de jure. My use of the terms is not loose and it's quite correct, if I say so myself.

It was surely a political move, but one in which Portugal traded one liege for another. While it was clearly a prudent political move, it did have tangible effects on Portugal. The power of the Church increased drastically in that period and as a result much of Portugal's history in the 13th century has to do with conflicts between the crown and the church.

Quite correct. Don't think I ever disputed this.

And my response is this: When Spain, or the "Kingdom of All the Spains", was formed, Portugal's existence relative to that state was not clear. Only after maintaining independence in the long run did Portugal become explicitly excluded from the term "Spain". Because that exclusion is a relatively modern notion, there is no reason to treat the Spanish formation process as distinctly different from the rest of the formations in EU3 and EU4. We can't exclude Austria from Germany just because it maintained independence throughout most of the modern period. Changing the name would be no different, as Hispania is a direct synonym for Spain and Iberia was not used in this period as a political notion. Spain is clearly the most logical and historic name we could choose, even if its modern connotations differ somewhat.

The Empire of All Spains was an ambition of many Medieval monarch, that, to the best of my knowledge, only Ferdinand the Great managed to make a reality fo a brief period of time.
What you call Spain is a political union that resulted from the same guy inheriting both Castille and Aragon and continuing to use that ancient title that was ever an ambition and never a reality of Emperor of all Spains. The difference between the two is quite clear to me. The exclusion of Portugal from the concept of Spain dates from 1516 to this day (with a disputable 60-year-hiatus). Austria was part of the same political entity and the German states since forever until the dissolution of HRE in the early XIX, hardly a good comparison. Hispania is the root for Spain. They are different words with different meanings: Spain became since 1516 what we know today. Hispania was a word whose meaning never evolved in that way because it was not use for that purpose. As such it could be a viable option.

Please do forgive any remarks you might take offence from, none of it is intended as personal. I must confess I grew a bit weary of this discussion, and maybe it is I that do not understand your points of view or cannot make myself understood. Anyways, that it. (won't review, so forgive also spelling and such)

 

[grandadmiralbob]

Exactly, sometimes I want to see if I am able to do as well as the actual nation did historically or even see if I could do better, but over all I just play for fun.

When you do this, do you play with lucky nations on?

 

[Duarte]

If i am allowed i would like to leave a suggestion : what if there is no iberia but rather a union tag for the portuguese and the galicians there is a "precedent" for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Portugal

and kinda how the spaniards legitimated ther outhoraty by claming continuation from the visigoths so can the portuguese/galizians claim continuation from the sueves.

P.S sorry for my bad english

 

[apfelstrudel]

thanks for making this thread, i was about to ask the same question. to the point, i've never played this game before. can anyone explain to me how to form USA? is it possible to form it before 1776?

 

[Chieron]

thanks for making this thread, i was about to ask the same question. to the point, i've never played this game before. can anyone explain to me how to form USA? is it possible to form it before 1776?

USA are a revolter, not actually formable. When you start as England/Gb and colonize the eastern seaboard, you'll be able to release them as vassal after the colonial event hit (after 1750, assuming it still works the same as in EU3). But you won't tag-switch to the USA.

 

[WeissRaben]

USA are a revolter, not actually formable. When you start as England/Gb and colonize the eastern seaboard, you'll be able to release them as vassal after the colonial event hit (after 1750, assuming it still works the same as in EU3). But you won't tag-switch to the USA.

Actually, in EU3 you COULDN'T release them - they were American in culture, and there was no way for that culture to emerge from English. So, the English could not free them.

 

[apfelstrudel]

USA are a revolter, not actually formable. When you start as England/Gb and colonize the eastern seaboard, you'll be able to release them as vassal after the colonial event hit (after 1750, assuming it still works the same as in EU3). But you won't tag-switch to the USA.

is that mean i can't play as the USA?