An OOC note on early modern embassies
Embassies prior to the 18th century were largely temporary, with no permanent representation except in unusual circumstances (e.g. occasionally between Spain and Austria). In keeping with this, my embassy is here for a single stated purpose, and I shall depart when I deem my mission a success or failure. Of course, if the Poles, who, as far as I know, never sent an ambassador except to Moscow, Vienna or Constantinople until the 17th century, wish to make their representation permanent, that’s their business).
On the subject of precedence: this was a tricky subject. As late as 1812, a French ambassador fought a duel (possibly in Rome) to preserve the honour of his sovereign. I shall likewise take this very seriously.
Precedence was determined by a number of factors.
1. Who sent the embassy? Kings had precedence over princes, who in turn had precedence over dukes, etc. The exception was Venice, whose duke was treated as a king. Therefore, my ambassador has precedence over the Polish one, who is sent by a mere committee of nobles.
2. When was the embassy sent? In the 18th century there was a move to give precedence to earlier arrivals. But I think it is way too early for that.
3. If both ambassadors were appointed by sovereigns of equal rank, the following entered into the equation:
a. Which sovereign was more powerful?
b. Did the state to which they were sent wish to insult the ambassador?
I would argue Turkey for the first (though, not having conquered Egypt by 1566, the Turks seem to be quite far behind here), and – given that 78% of the senators wish for continued good-ish relations with the Ottoman Empire, I would suggest no in this instance.
4. Representatives of the Pope and HRE took precedence over all others. As emissary of the Sultan of Sultans, etc, I shall of course challenge this if the need arises.
Why all this fuss? Well, two reasons:
1. Ego trip, as with most mid-16th century ambassadors;
2. As most senior ambassador, I wish to have the right occasionally to speak on behalf of the entire diplomatic community. (You may need it if your “BB” rises any further)
….with my apologies for monopolising the board over the past few minutes.
PS, the strange colour is to make this as inoffensive and unobtrusive as possible
Embassies prior to the 18th century were largely temporary, with no permanent representation except in unusual circumstances (e.g. occasionally between Spain and Austria). In keeping with this, my embassy is here for a single stated purpose, and I shall depart when I deem my mission a success or failure. Of course, if the Poles, who, as far as I know, never sent an ambassador except to Moscow, Vienna or Constantinople until the 17th century, wish to make their representation permanent, that’s their business).
On the subject of precedence: this was a tricky subject. As late as 1812, a French ambassador fought a duel (possibly in Rome) to preserve the honour of his sovereign. I shall likewise take this very seriously.
Precedence was determined by a number of factors.
1. Who sent the embassy? Kings had precedence over princes, who in turn had precedence over dukes, etc. The exception was Venice, whose duke was treated as a king. Therefore, my ambassador has precedence over the Polish one, who is sent by a mere committee of nobles.
2. When was the embassy sent? In the 18th century there was a move to give precedence to earlier arrivals. But I think it is way too early for that.
3. If both ambassadors were appointed by sovereigns of equal rank, the following entered into the equation:
a. Which sovereign was more powerful?
b. Did the state to which they were sent wish to insult the ambassador?
I would argue Turkey for the first (though, not having conquered Egypt by 1566, the Turks seem to be quite far behind here), and – given that 78% of the senators wish for continued good-ish relations with the Ottoman Empire, I would suggest no in this instance.
4. Representatives of the Pope and HRE took precedence over all others. As emissary of the Sultan of Sultans, etc, I shall of course challenge this if the need arises.
Why all this fuss? Well, two reasons:
1. Ego trip, as with most mid-16th century ambassadors;
2. As most senior ambassador, I wish to have the right occasionally to speak on behalf of the entire diplomatic community. (You may need it if your “BB” rises any further)
….with my apologies for monopolising the board over the past few minutes.
PS, the strange colour is to make this as inoffensive and unobtrusive as possible
Last edited: