Mar 14, 2003
511
0
Visit site
The purpose of this thread is to provide one area for the discussion of the setup and events related to the Hundred Years War. This includes changes, new proposals and fantasy events.
 
Mar 14, 2003
511
0
Visit site
French Setup

Currently the France at game start represents the captive government of Charles VI, which is under the control of Burgundy and not selectable by the player. We have been getting feedback in various threads that this has been causing confusion. Below I've posted what has been done already, and the major additional proposals from other council members and the community. Any preferences?

What has been done about this so far
  • An explanation of the HYW setup has been posted in a mod FAQ.
Other Proposals
  • Create an player only event that gives a brief explanation
  • Use a free tag to represent the captive governement, with explanation in the description
  • Script events that forces the player to become the Dauphin or Burgundy, if the Treaty of Troyes fires
 
Mar 14, 2003
511
0
Visit site
ribbon22 said:
Also, how come the BOU tag isn't called 'Armagnacs' or something like that? I mean, 'Dauphin' is an abstraction anyways, so wouldn't 'Armagnacs' or something be cool?
Strange of you to mention this, I've been considering it since the Armagnacs have a tag in 1.08.
ribbon22 said:
btw, I am now going to sound even more like a heathen, but is there any way to make the HYW setup have more minors? (like a hybrid between EEP setup and what we have?). If not, what about adding in some minors as revolters! i.e. we could keep the current setup, but add some revolting minors to deal with that grey area between one extreme: an ENG that proceeds historically, and another extremem: ENG that conquors all of FRA. Some discussion on what we're going to do with an ENG that retains lands in FRA post-1453 would be cool. :)
I've only been looking at this from a what if England wins the HYW standpoint. I promise to keep an open mind, feel free to post any ideas.
 

unmerged(12759)

Sergeant
Dec 15, 2002
67
0
Visit site
There is a bit of a problem with this event:

Code:
event = {

id = 1000007
random = no
country = BUR
name = "The Treaty of Troyes"
desc = "..."
style = 1

action_a = {
name = "Support the Rights of Henry of Lancaster"
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = removecore which = 385 } #Île de France
command = { type = relation which = ENG value = 50 }
command = { type = relation which = FRA value = -25 }
command = { type = relation which = BOU value = -100 }
command = { type = alliance which = ENG }
command = { type = breakvassal which = FRA }
command = { type = trigger which = 1000008 } # The Treaty of Troyes - Henry heir to Crown  -> France
}

If England already has an alliance (most of the time it's with Eire I've noticed), the alliance command does not seem to work. This leads to strange (ahistorical) situations, where England attacks Burgundy just months after signing this treaty. I don't know how to solve this, but I just wanted to report it.

BTW, great work on the HYW in AGCEEP :)
 

Norrefeldt

Porphyrogenitus
Aug 1, 2001
7.433
0
Visit site
The alliance command will add Burgundy to England's alliance if England is leader of the alliance and Burgundy is not in another alliance nor a vassal. In this case it would work if the breakvassal command is before the alliance command, since they are executed at once when read.
 

Captain Frakas

Jacobin enragé
13 Badges
Apr 10, 2002
7.077
706
  • Cities in Motion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
DarkTemplar said:
If England already has an alliance (most of the time it's with Eire I've noticed), the alliance command does not seem to work. This leads to strange (ahistorical) situations, where England attacks Burgundy just months after signing this treaty. I don't know how to solve this, but I just wanted to report it.

BTW, great work on the HYW in AGCEEP :)

Only solution is in 3 events :
1) Burgondy vassalise England
2) Burgondy invite England + breakvassal with England
3) England breakvassal with burgondy (i'm not sure who should make the breakvassal :) ) england : +6 diplo. +6 stab.
 

unmerged(17856)

General
Jun 26, 2003
2.473
0
Visit site
the 'break vassal' command must be applied to the country that is (before the event) vassaled. For example, if Burgundy is a vassal of France, then the only way to break the relationship is an event for Burgundy with the 'break vassal' command.

I may be wrong, but Burgundy will not ally themselves with England if Burgundy has a 'breakvassal' command (snapping vassalation with France) and an 'alliance' command (to ENG) in the same event choice. The only result will be the vassal broken with France. Burgundy will not be allied to England. You'd need another event triggered by the initial event, which would ally England to a newly freed Burgundy.
 
Sep 20, 2002
584
0
Visit site
in the event "the murder of john the fearless" burgundy gets an extra 15k of troops, but no cb on dauphine ? in random events you even get a cb by being insulted, but if your ruler is assasinated you don´t ???
 
Mar 14, 2003
511
0
Visit site
Melchior said:
in the event "the murder of john the fearless" burgundy gets an extra 15k of troops, but no cb on dauphine ? in random events you even get a cb by being insulted, but if your ruler is assasinated you don´t ???
Already been discussed, the CB should be in the next version.
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Oh... Excuse me for bothering, because HYW isn't mine bag of apples indeed, but... I wonder...
We (in Russia) are used to be taught that - internal reason for HYW was ethnic divergence of people in modern France territory. I mean - modern France still has got 2 main climatic zones: atlantic & mediterranean with clear border in Loire Valley. Then all "unification" or "heresy" wars here had a really simple reason: way of life & common customs of people in atlantic climatic zone MUST differ from way of life & common customs of Mediterranean (common difference between way of life in temporary & sub-tropical climates) - especially in natural conditions of feudal Europe.
Then real reason of fighting was - trying on French majority (inhabitants of atlantic zone) to bring minority (inhabitants of Mediterranean) to "common laws" & "way of life". From other side - Mediterranean population of modern France territory tried to fight this onslaught because "way of life of Notherners" ruined their life & brought them for poverty. This struggle has got different colours - religious & ideological: for example - Albiguenis wars or
Reformation wars - later.
By the way people in Liguria, Provensale, Languedoque & Catalonia regions in XIII-XIV century used the same language, had the same customs & count themselves as entity - opposed to "Northerners", which were as Northern French, as Englishmen for them. Oh... I'm afraid almost all French "heroes" of those times were considered as "arch-villains" by Mediterranean population (in Liguria, Provance, Languedoque, Catalonia - no difference) & vice versa. For example, if I remember correctly - Dauphine province was added to fief of French King just before start of Great Campaign in EU2 & would be appropriate to give "nationalism" factor to this territory if we would stay on used in EU2 attitude of HYW perceiving.
But if you like to mirror real history more close - there wasn't any "nationalism" there (in Dauphine) due to fact - French side in this moment of war was effectively "Mediterranean French" side. It means...
In XI-XV centuries both part of English Channel had the same population with the same way of life & common customs. It was most rational & common sense idea to rule them from one source: this source was French kingdom & English crown as its vassal. In times of this "unity of some sort" French kings had enough strength & else to bring Mediterranean (i.e. primarily "alien") French society to vassality, but there were a lot of strong rudiments of independence here.
Crisis broke out in wilting out main line of French kings with England cutting her vassalage from France. Valois family traditionally had her base support in south French provinces - then Mediterranean population acknowledged them as "people kings", but Northern population saw them as... "outsiders" at best. It was real reason for English trying for French crown, because withoun popular support in FRENCH population idea would be nonsense from start. Then we've got real historical backing up of this situation - when we've got historical evidence about Northern French population backing up English cause against "real French" side.
This explained difference in opinion of Englishmen to different french provinces hold by Englishmen. Normandy, Caux & Picardy was as "core" lands for England as Midland or Wessex, but Gascogne or Poitie were - just English king fiefs. In case of Ile-de-France or Champagne territories local self-definition of frenchmen didn't let them to acknowledge them as "continental Englishmen" then - their resistance to "southern kings" took form of backing up of Burgundy, which was a "mirroring" of previous situation in this climatic zone - compare: 1) France as leader & England as vassal with
2) England as leader with Burgundy as vassal - it is the same political & ethnical construction!
Then - this political construction explain English disaster in XV century. By internal political reasons English government "split up" kingdom' territory to 2 separate halves - with different rulers in "continental" & "island" parts. This move destroyed main reason for Northern French support for English cause - what is reason for commoners in backing somebody, if he is just "appointed ruler", but not real king, when your compatriots fight & die for "real King" & "douce France"?? (Don't forget we are speaking about feudal society in its prime times.) What reason for nobility in fighting for somebody, if this man can't give you new fiefs of letting, because he is not King for that? All English political structure in "continental part" crumbled very fast. Burgundy as political phenomena & structure had more reasons for existence, but it hadn't another political reason/idea for survival except - being recipient part of England/Burgundy (as France/England before that) entity.
Then Jeanne d'Ark appearance was turning point of HYW. It means - common Northern Frenchmen begin to prefer "pure French" rule over them to rule of "outsider" - English king in this case.
Then all HYW history is a history of opinion of Northern French population (i.e. majority in any case - to Mediterranean French or Englishmen - no difference) to their ruler - ruler got "shaft" of that (i.e. stigma of "outsider") lost his cause - in this part of France.
I just repeat you basic point of view on HYW from History Faculty of Moscow State University. It can differ from your own opinion - it's just a teaching. (By the way this teaching explains later political moves of France - into Mediterranean area - Italian wars of Charles VIII for example).
______________________________________________________________
It means... I always thought England MUST had her cores on Northern French territories in 1419 & she MUST lost it by French "Jeanne" event. From other side "Jeanne" event must be fired by another event - like English "Gloster Refusal in Parliament" or something like that. (In any case English Government dug English grave in French soil itself ;) - not anybody else.) And... If "Jeanne" event fires - English can win SOME war, but not HYW as whole, because... Because History os a river with just one direction.

Then after "Jeanne" event - it seems original Paradox event "End of HYW" is more accurate then anything else. (England loses her French culture). But requirement for this event are rather broad now - Englishmen didn't consider Poitie or Gascogne as their "core lands", but just as "hereditary lands of English crown" - it's a difference, isn't it? Then... losing Normandy, Caux, Picardy or Calais would bring disaster, but losing of Poitie or Gascogne - wouldn't.

Excuse me for bothering again - with best regards Bash
 

unmerged(17856)

General
Jun 26, 2003
2.473
0
Visit site
Hey Bash, some very interesting comments and if you don't mind I'd like to ask you some questions on your perspective :) ...
Bash said:
Then real reason of fighting was - trying on French majority (inhabitants of atlantic zone) to bring minority (inhabitants of Mediterranean) to "common laws" & "way of life". From other side - Mediterranean population of modern France territory tried to fight this onslaught because "way of life of Notherners" ruined their life & brought them for poverty. This struggle has got different colours - religious & ideological: for example - Albiguenis wars or
Reformation wars - later.
I think I understand you here, but would you consider the Gasconny and the Aquitaine duchies mediterranean? It would suite my own perspective if they were. Or at least if they were more mediterranean than they were northern/atlantic.
Bash said:
But if you like to mirror real history more close - there wasn't any "nationalism" there (in Dauphine) due to fact - French side in this moment of war was effectively "Mediterranean French" side. It means...
In XI-XV centuries both part of English Channel had the same population with the same way of life & common customs. It was most rational & common sense idea to rule them from one source: this source was French kingdom & English crown as its vassal. In times of this "unity of some sort" French kings had enough strength & else to bring Mediterranean (i.e. primarily "alien") French society to vassality, but there were a lot of strong rudiments of independence here.
I agree with you here. From another standpoint, if you take English and Norman history, the periods of English civil war in the 12th-13th centuries are punctuated by instances where the king has divided English rule across the channel. It made much more sense and practically it was more stable, when England rules her duchies from a centralized government.
Bash said:
Crisis broke out in wilting out main line of French kings with England cutting her vassalage from France. Valois family traditionally had her base support in south French provinces - then Mediterranean population acknowledged them as "people kings", but Northern population saw them as... "outsiders" at best. It was real reason for English trying for French crown, because withoun popular support in FRENCH population idea would be nonsense from start. Then we've got real historical backing up of this situation - when we've got historical evidence about Northern French population backing up English cause against "real French" side.
Do you mean in both Edward III and Henry V circumstancs, or only one of them? I think it was the French king who basically 'attainted' (declared his duchy forfeit to the French crown) and invaded Edward III's duchys in southwestern FRA that was the most direct reason for ENG invasion. And the FRA king's animosity towards Edward III is a throwback to Henry II's era which continued throughout Edward I's and Edward II's reigns. Also, it was convenient at the time for parliament to support Edward's invasion with money b/c of the cotton and wool furor in modern day Belgium, Holland regions; FRA was attempting to annex these lucrative lands of commerce.
Bash said:
This explained difference in opinion of Englishmen to different french provinces hold by Englishmen. Normandy, Caux & Picardy was as "core" lands for England as Midland or Wessex, but Gascogne or Poitie were - just English king fiefs.
I agree, in terms of 'nationality' or 'sentiment', Normandy/Caux ties were much stronger than the Gascogne ties, but the Gascogne ties were certainly more important in terms of commerce. The Gascognes liked ENG rule b/c they knew they'd be given more freedom under ENG rule than they would under French. Again, if you considered Gascogne to be Mediterranean, then our two approaches would seem to be congruent.
Bash said:
Then - this political construction explain English disaster in XV century. By internal political reasons English government "split up" kingdom' territory to 2 separate halves - with different rulers in "continental" & "island" parts. This move destroyed main reason for Northern French support for English cause - what is reason for commoners in backing somebody, if he is just "appointed ruler", but not real king, when your compatriots fight & die for "real King" & "douce France"?? (Don't forget we are speaking about feudal society in its prime times.) What reason for nobility in fighting for somebody, if this man can't give you new fiefs of letting, because he is not King for that?
well I'd agree with you, and I am guessign you're reffering to Bedford's rule in FRA with the council ruling in ENG? I must say though, that Bedford and at least York as the king's 'lieutenant' in FRA could and did excersise the powers of the king in terms of granting lands and appointments to councils, control of the local French exchequer and so on. But even by York's appointment, he was forced to replace the Norman and French nobles in his large 'Norman-council' with English ones, and then reduce the size of the council. It was becoming more and more evident to the Normans and the English that the English were in actuality war-time occupiers, and not really the rightful rulers.
Bash said:
All English political structure in "continental part" crumbled very fast.
IMO, this is more indicative of the differences b/w Northern/Atlantic French and the English that had grown between 13th and 15th centuries. The time for England and French unity at this stage of the game, was almost 200 years out of date. The time for that kind reality was crushed whew Henry II's children decided to rebel against him, and side with the French king! Enter Richard I (the lionheart) who must have had one helluva fight with the French king while on their crusade together...and so subsequently John I, who lost all of ENG possessions in FRA. FRA even invaded ENG and occupied it for some time!
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
[Continued]

By finishing my prev message I've met some historical problems which I need to check in my books. Well, after some checking I see situation on HYW as that:

1. Initial stage - England has cores on French territories in Normandy, Caux, Picardy (?) & Calais (?). France definitely hasn't shields on Normandy & Caux.
This stage come to end by English "Parliament decision" event.

2. "England in bifurcation point" - real reason for splitting is - England in XV century was the same "two-headed" ethnicity monster as France, but her problem was struggle between: 1) way of life her South temperate climatic zone way of life & common customs; 2) way of life her North sub-boreal climatic zone. Then struggle between Gloster & Beauforts in Parliament was struggle between Gloster (south-end native) surrounding & Beaufort (north-end native) supports. By the way - later these (hidden in 1420-s) internal strifes brought in War of Roses in England (but trigger for War of Roses was losing in HYW - not any rather petty political conflicts - of course).
Then - this event MUST have some visual part & some hidden part:
1) in its ahistorical b option - "Gloster has got supreme ruling over England & his southern raised minions push out Beauforts & their northern brethren from power - Northern lands of England are unhappy":
This choice in visible part of iceberg must bring so harsh thing as losing shields on Northumbria & Wales definitely & on Lancaster (or maybe - Yorkshire) as possible any other maluses are possible as well;
But in invisible part this choice must send "Jeanne" event for sleeping forever - I'm sure in this moment it's fair enough bonus for England ;)
2) in its historical a option - "Gloster confined in continental part of country - Northern lands of England are happy" - we can give England (in visual side) a lot of sweet things - like stability improvement & infra bonuses, but its hidden part we've got just one subtle string - "Jeanne event is awaken".

By the way - this "bifurcation" moment can imply one interesting option with a lot of consequences: if English government "turned face on South" (in ahistorical decision), it means it "turn back on North" - what do you think would reaction of "degraded by this decision" population of English Northlands be? These lands had the same customs & way of living as population of Scotland Lowlands...
I see England in this moment of history like sleeping guy under rather short blanket: he can cover only upper or lower part of his body. England in historical option covers her "upper-part", but what would be consequence if she would cover her "low-part"??? Would it be right to shift centre of power in British Isles to Scotland favor - giving them by this ahistorical choice - some event giving them "anglosaxon culture" - for example?! I'm sure it would keep "balance of power" intact here & open a mighty can of worms in this district till... XIX century ;).
Oh, for example - this ahistorical choice imply - England better to stay on Catholic side later for her good living (because her most populated & prosperous provinces would be internally Catholic - in North France). & so on...
Or what if in ahistorical choice War of Roses begins in England by another trigger - losing Northumbria for Scotland?? (It means War of Roses would be fired in any case ;) - due to losing English shield on Northumbria & gaining anglosaxon culture for Scotland - losing Northumbria is just question of time under this harsh conditions :).

3) "Jeanne" event - this event in addition to agreed conditions add shields for France on all Northern France provinces & just one string - we must check next conditions: England & France must be in peace & France must own Orleanne & Champagne. (I.e. Jeanne cause won).

4) "Reims coronation" event - French King (from southern Valois family) crowned himself in Reims Chapel by ancient customs of NORTHERN FRANCE people. It means - southern Frenchmen keep to support him, because he was raised in their lands, but Notherners begin to support him due to fact - King acknowledged their common customs & their rights of Life. It means - "France became to be united" in political & ethnic meanings. AFTER that it's possible to bring French military Reforms or else, but most important thing is - France can lose any war - it's nothing, but England losing on french soil means - "ENGLAND LOST HYW & FRENCH CULTURE" for good.
In other words - "Reims coronation" event takes out from England any shields on French soil for start, & let "French win on HYW" event to be awaken... till 1819! "Godmills work slowly, but fine..." ;)

With brgds Bash
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
ribbon22 said:
I agree, in terms of 'nationality' or 'sentiment', Normandy/Caux ties were much stronger than the Gascogne ties, but the Gascogne ties were certainly more important in terms of commerce. The Gascognes liked ENG rule b/c they knew they'd be given more freedom under ENG rule than they would under French. Again, if you considered Gascogne to be Mediterranean, then our two approaches would seem to be congruent.
Yep. It is a case. I didn't like to enter some weird discussion here about ethnicity of Gascogne population in XV century, but I'm sure in had got a lot of basque ethnical component. It means they were not Nothern French guys & they were not Mediterraneans (by saying that I've mean inhabitants of Provencale region first of all). They were "third force" with their own customs & way of life different from other "major" factions. It means Gascognes people keep their ties with England on commercial ground, but in any other sense. If I remember correctly England just pacify some territorial mutual grudges with Castilla in this region - it means - local population was as "alien" to Northern French pop as to Mediterranean France pop - it brings their attitude to HYW. (& their attitude to main French population brings Reformation wars in France latet ;) "If there isn't difference in Kings, why to pay more?" ;)

About English-French difference in XV century - I'm not sure if there was any SHARP step in population attitude here. We've got a rather scaled mutual attitude - What people considered as "We" & as "They". For example - popolation of Northumbria considered Lowland Scots as different guys, but in grand scale they were as "Islanders" in comparison to French as to Moors & Spaniard. On the same scale Wessex inhabitants saw Northumbrians as "ours" as Normandians, but Provencales were as alien for them as Scots, Parisiens or Moors ;). Inhabitants of Normandie saw as "us" - any Wessexians or Parisiens, but proclaimed as "they" - any Provencales, or Northumbrians. Then it was reason - why it was possible to rule Normandie or Caux from London directly, but Paris, Champagne or Nevers was considered by Englishmen as "Burgonnese sphere of influence".

Then - it brings initial problem of Acquitaigne & Gascogne becoming trigger point for HYW. I'm sure - this conflict initially was usual feudal conflict about some distant fiefs - like struggle between England & France over some distant colonies in Quebec or India later. Was it bloody? Yep. Like battle for Quebec. Was it on "personal" level? No. Like strugle for Pondisherry many years after. But then - in some moment when usual feudal quarrel went onto "personal" or "ethnic" level - then sides came to jugular veins of each other.
Was Flemish trade another trigger for this war? Definitely yes. As any economical struggle between any country in later times. But any "trade war" becoming "real war" is just another economical venture. People of both countries unsdersand its economical gains & meaning & fight it like any mercenary war. But HYW wasn't "common trade war". It became overture to harsh & dirty Reformation war in next century, because it has "ethnic" sublevel. Other countries led very bloody wars in time of HYW, but only this war brought real emotional impact on observers & participitants. Idea of "douce France" like an idea "we are Islanders" appearing in this war was rather new for Feudal society, & you must to take in account that first pure "national" movement in history of Europe - Jan Gus preaching had a reason of HYM as its basic point.
Then - main difference of HYW from earlier wars was popular definition on "We" & "They" based not only on feudal meanings, but on something new - basic, cruel & utterly devastated in human souls. This monster was so ugly & terrible that first preacher of IT - Jan Gus was burned on stake with a good reason, but Pandora box was opened & Gussites movement went under the slogan: "Kill all Germans, because they are - Germans!"
Then "nationalism" parameter used in this magnificent game is a very important parameter brought to life - just in 1420s!

When we understand this importance of HYW for History, we can explain importance of Aquitain accident or Flemish trade situation... Yep, they were triggers for HYW. Very important triggers. But most important trigger for it was Italian Renaissanse & raising self-conscience of all Europe. It became first war when it became impossible for Noble to change side & keep his Honour after that - concept really weird for feudal wars in XIV century, for example. Just imagine - people's opinion on "honorable behavior" change in course of one & the same ware to 180 degrees! Oh, another bla-bla-bla from my side... :(

With brgds Bash
 

unmerged(17856)

General
Jun 26, 2003
2.473
0
Visit site
Bash said:
1. Initial stage - England has cores on French territories in Normandy, Caux, Picardy (?) & Calais (?). France definitely hasn't shields on Normandy & Caux.
This stage come to end by English "Parliament decision" event.
ENG begins with cores on Normandy, Caux, Calais and Gascogne, but not on Picardie. You're referring to the parlilament decision about how to govern ENG after Henry V's death, I assume.
Bash said:
2. "England in bifurcation point" - real reason for splitting is - England in XV century was the same "two-headed" ethnicity monster as France, but her problem was struggle between: 1) way of life her South temperate climatic zone way of life & common customs; 2) way of life her North sub-boreal climatic zone. Then struggle between Gloster & Beauforts in Parliament was struggle between Gloster (south-end native) surrounding & Beaufort (north-end native) supports. By the way - later these (hidden in 1420-s) internal strifes brought in War of Roses in England (but trigger for War of Roses was losing in HYW - not any rather petty political conflicts - of course). Then - this event MUST have some visual part & some hidden part:
1) in its ahistorical b option - "Gloster has got supreme ruling over England & his southern raised minions push out Beauforts & their northern brethren from power - Northern lands of England are unhappy":
This choice in visible part of iceberg must bring so harsh thing as losing shields on Northumbria & Wales definitely & on Lancaster (or maybe - Yorkshire) as possible any other maluses are possible as well;
But in invisible part this choice must send "Jeanne" event for sleeping forever - I'm sure in this moment it's fair enough bonus for England ;)
2) in its historical a option - "Gloster confined in continental part of country - Northern lands of England are happy" - we can give England (in visual side) a lot of sweet things - like stability improvement & infra bonuses, but its hidden part we've got just one subtle string - "Jeanne event is awaken".
Well there's alot in this quote but I'll try to comment constructively. Probably the biggest thing that struck me was the core management. I'm not too sure that it should logically follow that if Gloucester was given the powers of king, that ENG should lose cores on Wales and Northumberland. The HYW united ENG nobles to a degree that superceded the ugly usurpation and rebellions that had punctuated Richard II's and Henry IV's reign. Gloucester was a strong adherent to his older brother's (Henry V's) policy of aggression in FRA. So it's logical to assume that the 'diverted attention' of ENG's nobles would continue under Gloucester's rule. The situation is diferent, however, if Henry V rejects the Treaty of Troyes or, as it stands, opts for a "generous peace". And is a probably a more interesting matter of debate.

The north of ENG, in this era, is best represented - politically - as a struggle between the Neville and Percy clans for supremacy of the east and west marcher districts. At gamestart, the Earl of Northumberland is enjoying royal favour, despite the fact that not 15 years before, his predesessor joined an incredible rebellion along with the Welsh against Henry IV. So why is Northumberland still enjoying royal favour? Well, one, the Percy's, initially, supported Henry IV's usurpation, in 1399. But more importantly, there is an old saying "the north knows no king but a Percy" or something like that! In other words, Henry V, just as his father, Richard II before him, his own son Henry VI, and his son's future 'usurper' Edward IV, relied very heavily on the authorative figure of a Percy as Earl of Northumberland. It would hard to think that Gloucester, having assumed the status of an effective king during Henry VI's minority, would have abused the real masters of the north. It is simply too dangerous a move, and with war in FRA, simply out of the question. The marcher lords defended ENG from SCO border raids, which was a very frightening prospect to the Northerners as far south as Nottingham!

Now, what about the Beaufort's? Well, in all truth they had very little in terms of landed wealth! Pissing off the Beaufort's, just after Henry V's death, by creating Gloucester Regent of England, wouldn't have created nearly the furor that pissing off Beaufort's would (and did) once Henry VI had declared his minority at an end, and had been brain washed with Beaufort sentiment. It is blatantly obvious that Henry VI will never get rid of Somerset despite Somerset's unpopularity and incompetence, as he makes Somerset his newborn son's godfather.

I certainly agree the 'Northerners' as they were called, were of a different character (for lack of a better term), than their Southern counterparts, but I think it would be a mistake to draw a parallel line of fit between north FRA v.s. mediterranean FRA and Northerns v.s Southerners in ENG. The differences in Geography of England and the entirety of FRA, IMO, are just too large to ignore. So, IMO, the cultural/ethnic differences between Northerners and Southerners in ENG, are smaller than differences between Northern FRA and Mediterranean FRA.

The second point that struck me was the assumption that Gloucester's Regency should sleep the Joan of Arc events. Which events? All or just a few? To tell you the truth, I just don't see the connection and the logic behind such a conclusion. Can you explain why you think that choosing Gloucester should sleep the Joan of Arc events please? :)

My own view, was that the Joan of Arc events should really occurr regardless of whether it is the English or the Burgundians who are beating on the Dauphin. For example, if England rejects the Treaty of Troyes, the Burgundians will either fight the Dauphin for the throne of FRA or some kind of deal would occur...and if the Duke of Burgundy was killed on Montereu Bridge then I think there'd be a war. If the duke of Burgundy is not killed on the bridge of Montereau, then some kind of agreement would be worked out.

Bash said:
By the way - this "bifurcation" moment can imply one interesting option with a lot of consequences: if English government "turned face on South" (in ahistorical decision), it means it "turn back on North" - what do you think would reaction of "degraded by this decision" population of English Northlands be? These lands had the same customs & way of living as population of Scotland Lowlands...
I see England in this moment of history like sleeping guy under rather short blanket: he can cover only upper or lower part of his body. England in historical option covers her "upper-part", but what would be consequence if she would cover her "low-part"??? Would it be right to shift centre of power in British Isles to Scotland favor - giving them by this ahistorical choice - some event giving them "anglosaxon culture" - for example?! I'm sure it would keep "balance of power" intact here & open a mighty can of worms in this district till... XIX century ;).
I can't see SCO attaining anglosaxon culture this early, not until the Act of Union for a SCO player. And especially if we end up creating a GBR tag ("Great Britain" tag). So I suppose I just don't see ENG's northern shires and marcher lands as a big problem, really, besides the usual threat from SCO invasion.
Bash said:
4) "Reims coronation" event...but most important thing is - France can lose any war - it's nothing, but England losing on french soil means - "ENGLAND LOST HYW & FRENCH CULTURE" for good. In other words - "Reims coronation" event takes out from England any shields on French soil for start, & let "French win on HYW" event to be awaken... till 1819! "Godmills work slowly, but fine..." ;)
currently, ENG doesn't start with French culture. The ENG player has a claim to the FRA throne (thus it's easy for them to retain the cores, and attain more cores) but it's another thing to win the people over. The idea was to give ENG french culture as a reward for winning the FRA war. But no talk of this has yielded much. My view is that ENG, having united the crown, leaps into a massive civil war upon Henry VI's death, in 1471. And only after surviving this, should ENG probably get French culture.

In teh event that ENG loses the HYW, the cores on FRA probably need tobe removed, but at what point? you're saying the Joan of Arc events, but this question revolves around the project's use of core allocation and the porject's definition of a core. So it is doubtful that you and I, alone, could enforce some kind of change in that regard wihout at least some in depth discussion.[/QUOTE]
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
ribbon22 said:
ENG begins with cores on Normandy, Caux, Calais and Gascogne, but not on Picardie.
Excuse me I've used to start any discussion from vanilla version conditions. (It help me to make it simple for anyone in different topics :).)


Well, I've used to tell myself - never try to fight anyone on his own ground - & everytime some impulse pushes me in rather alien environment. Oh, fine... :)

First of all, I had to divulge to you - I'm just hating to hear any "super-generalisation" ideas from students or juniors, but I must say - generalisation is a necessary evli if you like to study some processes - not individual facts taken apart from their own bunch. In other case we can't see any forest, because of the trees, & our goal is to understand "Why"s of History - not her "How"s. In other case our subject is the same thing as collection of matchboxes, ancient artifacts & foul rumors (or worse) about some meaningless things of the past. But if you begin to understand "why"s before "how"s - you can make prognosis of some sort on current deals, or making some profits from advising somebody - what is internal reason of this or that. Latter means - History isn't about matchbox collection, but it is really live & kicking science :). She is - Interest thing. :)

Then - let's gong ring & begin...

First of all, - let's repeat some words from The Koran & The Bible - "If anything occures three times in a row - it's a truth thing". It resembles one of the most important postulate of logic & cybernetic - if any statement has three confirmation from different sources - we MUST acknowledge it as True.

In case of History it means:
Any historical event occured one time had a lot of reasons depending from subjects, objects, time & place of this event.
If any history event occurs two times in a row - it is a "Tendency" & we must check all reasons, subjects & objects of both events trying to find some common features of BOTH these events (It is not suggested necessary existence of these common features - you see?)
If we've got three similar events in a row - then we've got an evidence of some hidden Rule - causing these events - & Our task as historians is - to discover this hidden Rule. Well...

In England case we saw very distinctive row of similar cases:
1a) Henry II Plantagenet had a rather troubled country, but could pull through all obstacles (Thomas Becket story included - try to imagine something similar in Edward II or Richard II or James II times - you'ld realize - Henry II was very lucky person ;) - or maybe not so lucky? Maybe he could pull through due to some hidden Rule which saves him?!
1b) Son of Henry II - John (let's take aside his son Richard - it's rather different & amusing story) lost all father's possesions on continent & was overcome by some very nasty revolt in his realm. Please - point me any crime committed by John which rise so much hard feelings as Thomas Becket murder by his father. But father did it & was forgiven & liket, but his more mild son wasn't.
2a) Edward III Plantagenet was rised to throne by Mortimer & payed him really dirty, rumors blackened him in patricide - but Edward could pull through all these obstacles & his rule in England was really magnificent.
2b) Son of Edward - Richard II was councellor & advisor of his father & show himself as rather able & competent ruler while his father was living. But then Richard became laughing stock of all England lost almost all English possesions on continent & was overcome by some really evil rebellion. Why?
3a) Henry V Lancaster was considered as really spoiled brat in times of his father ruling, but his reign is still considered as one of most magnificent in England. He was named as drinker, joker, robber & lot of any other names sufficient to sink down any reputation, But... he can pull through all of that.
3b) Son of Henry V - Henry VI Lancaster has got all possible teaching & tutoring from infancy. He was considered as brilliant diplomat & rather quick-witted person... but all in vain - he lost almost all English posessions on continent & was taken down by some really evil rebellion.

Do you see some really interesting pattern here? I'm sure - we've gor some very indicative case of "push-&-pull" economic phenomena in feudal society in case of England-France relationships. Let's forget about any John's, Richard's, Henry's & Beaufort's & Jeanne's & anything else. What would be histolical flow without all these historical persons? Then we've got a rather simple economical chart of the region. Most important & meaningful for this region were French state economic (English, Flemish & Iberian (in some extent) had the same importance for world economy of those times like economics of very important european states now in comparison of French economics then to USA economics now. They could their own fits, but French economy fevers brought a flu on all Atlantic-bound Europe.
Yep, it was feudal natural society then - there wasn't big impact on all parts of society, but its noble parts would be influed in really hard manner. Then feudal wars of tose times was led by just nobility for their own losses & gains ....

(to be continued)
 

Rhodz

Captain
76 Badges
Jul 7, 2002
396
1
www.phoenixavatars.com
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Cities in Motion
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For The Glory
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
It might be a good idea to split French culture into two: French(northern France) and Occitanian(mediterranean sphere). England would have "french" culture, due to their ease in taking on the northern French, but wouldnt gte Occitanian until they won the hundred years war. Dauphine would start off with Occitanian culture, as would Provence, but when Dauphine becomes France, Occitanian is removed, French granted, then with the absorption of Provence, Occitanian given again. Good idea?
 

unmerged(17856)

General
Jun 26, 2003
2.473
0
Visit site
Rhodz said:
It might be a good idea to split French culture into two: French(northern France) and Occitanian(mediterranean sphere). England would have "french" culture, due to their ease in taking on the northern French, but wouldnt gte Occitanian until they won the hundred years war. Dauphine would start off with Occitanian culture, as would Provence, but when Dauphine becomes France, Occitanian is removed, French granted, then with the absorption of Provence, Occitanian given again. Good idea?
If we do that, then I'd still protest giving french culture to England from the get go. I'd prefer to have ENG pacify northern FRA, and then have to fight even further still, for Southern subjugation. Occitanian might help Isaac with Italy, as he made comments about Italy only having one cutlure. Occitanian culture could also be utlized in a French uprising against a victorious ENG in the HYW.

EDIT: there's support for occitanian culture in MKJ's culture thread.

EDIT2: my curiosity had led me to a source, here which describes France in 1500. Even the first page is a good read. It even goes on to discuss some of those north/south distinctions. Anyone interested in French history care to propose some French duchies? We'll need them for an ENG victory in the HYW. My position is actually similar to Ioseth's in the first few pages of the France & British Isles thread on how to handle ENG victory in FRA.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
[Cont]

well, my prev post was rather long & dull then I'ld try to explain my cause more curtly. Then - just "backbone" of it.

1. French economy had her own circumcentennial rhytm of changes. It's not very influed commoners life due to rather natural property of French feudal economics, but influed life of nobles pretty hard.

2. Any "down" periods of French economics brought some tensions in upper-hand level of French society - i.e. raising separatismus & rebellions.

3. If France would be completely isolated region or ethnical entity, this process wouldn't be so devastated, but inhabitants of another shore of British Channel were effectively the same people with common customs, way of life & they've got really hard hereditery & cultural ties with "mother France". They own economy was influed by French economic affairs but in lesser extent & their own "down" moment was shifted to some later moments. I.e. if we like to see economics development of both countries then we've got 2 sinusoids when English graphs would be like French, but with lesser amlitude & with shifting on phase to latter times.
This rather weird & moody statement means rather simple thing: English nobles saw the same pattern - French state came to disorder of some sort & this disorder worsened their own level of life. Then - they begin to raise voices of dissent about necessity of "improving French situation". Due to really close hereditary & matrimonial & cultural ties between two countries they always have got a reason or two for "marital involvement" in this process. Due to fact - French economy was in her worst moment in cycle & their own deteriorated in lesser extent - English army was used to be better equipped, fed & payed then French army - it brought known results on battlefields.
Yep, results of these marital successes were different, but History each time have got different twist then some global process each time had its own slightly different "colour", hadn't it? ;)

4. These marital successes brought really immense popularity for existing English monarch (due to brought spoils of war, new fiefs for successful nobles & etc.), but French economics degraded more & pulled down into abyss English economics as well. Then English society have got really urgent massage: stop this war immediately. Then "pacifists" in English politics (Beauforts for example in case of our argument) have got upper-hand over "militarists" (Gloster in our case). We can argue very long about their own wits, but internal reason was really simple - English nobles had enough from a war, then they backed any "pacifist" against any "militarist" in this stage of process.

5. No success - English economy continued to fall into complete abyss - anyway (it had a very different reasons except from continuing war for that - are you see?) & first suffered from this process were most poor feudal from England - Northumbrian & Wales rulers as a rule. English King would make any step trying not "pushing around" any Percy's or anybody else - no difference - common rule of world economy made this unpleasant step for him very hard & efficient. Then King had to met really vile rebellions on North or West or begin to help by resources to crisis stricken regions. It means he had to choose between helping to Northumbria or continuation of war-effors. Every time English society was against continuation of war - are you surprised by similar results in every case???

[to be continued]
 

unmerged(17856)

General
Jun 26, 2003
2.473
0
Visit site
I'm not too sure that English society was responsible for the shift in policy towards FRA. Henry VI must take the full blame for ENG's shift in policy towards FRA. Henry VI desired peace at whatever cost. He knew that the ENG nobles did not want peace, and that the country did not want peace, and that it would be a bitter pill for them both, to swallow.

-This is why Henry VI surrounded himself with those who would support them, those with little by means of landed wealth and who therefore had nothing to lose, and everything to gain by obeying him, and him alone. Although Henry VI cannot take full credit for that aspect of his administration, as the Beaufort's dominated the Council throughout Henry VI's minority aswell.
-It is also why he chose to break the clause given in the Treaty of Troyes that actually forbade Henry VI to personally dictate foreign policy. The Treaty of Troyes (and what was ratified, I should clarify, in subsequent parliament) actually made it 'illegal' for the king of England to make peace with France without the consent of the lords of the realm! Only with a bitter struggle in parliament did Henry have his way, and the lords, very grudgingly (even Suffolk was not clearly supportive of Henry VI in this dcision of Henry's) accepted it. And what does Henry off and do?! Makes Charles VII his new pen-pal, promising Charles that he wants peace and will give up Anjou and Maine as a kind gesture! Furthermore, he orchestrated the Duke of Olreans release from captivity, again, as a kind gesture. It is true that the treasury was bankrupt, and that the councilors knew this, as well did Henry, which largely contributed to Henry's about-face on foreign policy towards France. He was a fool for a king.

AFA economics is concerned, well we have the black death wiping out half of Europes labour force not 60 or so years before EU2 gamestart. At least in ENG, this helped pave the way for a fresh injection and burgeoning lower gentry class, as wages skyrocketed with such a lack of labour supply and increased demand for tenants. It's also true that during 15th century, ENG and FRA (among others) were experiencing a harsh economic 'recession', and in ENG, a few seasons of crop failure did much to exuberate the situation, especially in the north. The falling rates (or stagnant) of tenantry hit teh nobles hard, and with the ENG exchequer bankrupt (high debt and only staying 'afloat' via loans) the middle and lessor magnates of ENG's nobility are hit hardest, fighting for what little scraps Henry VI can give them. Even the greater magnates complain about lack of promised and owned funds from the exchequer, though they ended up fairing the best out of all the nobles, because Henry VI fears a pissed off great magnate more than he fears a pissed of lessor magnate.

Which leads me to another point, why are ENG's souther provinces generating less tax and production income than ENG's northern provinces? Lancashire generates double of what provinces like Kent and Wessex do. Which I find odd...