Just Another Casus Belli Rant

[Lord Celestine]

I can not stress how much I absolute hate this part of the games mechanic, most wars in the medieval period and modern period were and are totally nonsensical and use very loose means to justify conquering vast swaths of land. NO ONE CARED back then what right you had to the land and still the same goes for today! It's the biggest baddest fish on the block that gets to eat the smaller fish at the end of the day.

Say for example I take over Britain and now I want to take over the Shetland/Orkney islands I have to send my 'Chancellor' to fabricate a claim against the current lord or lady of those islands? What if I declare a holy war? Most of the time they'll just convert. Speaking about that Holy War.

I finally got my turn as playing as Zoroastrian Nords trying to take over Scandinavia. Well you remember that part where 'nearby' rulers of the same faith 'may' join the war? If you cancel that part of 'nearby' and 'all' of them you got what I got. Holy Wars are bogus. Not mentioning that these rulers some of which came from pathetically small countries came to me usually with about 2000 soldiers, and there was about 15 of them. To top it off the attrition rate in the Scandinavian region for armies especially in winter absolutely desolates YOUR FORCES.

Now there are some proponents out there who will say. But if you could just declare war all the time the game would be to easy! and I have to say to you NO! NO IT WOULD NOT! Perhaps you've forgotten about the Defensive Pacts? I certainly haven't, because while I was taken over the British Isles I had about 30 nations ally themselves against me in another way that MAKES NO SENSE. I'm playing 'when the world stopped making sense mod' and so far the only thing that doesn't make sense are the games mechanics. Why the hell would people... oh wait never mind answered my own question for that I forgot that I conquered the kingdom of Gotland Inadvertently when I took over Scotland, which was controlled by Gotland. Strange how that worked out.

But anyways YES Defensive PACTS that is the way how most war-mongers get kicked to the curb both historically speaking and even today. Russia would have steamrolled into... well Russia did steam roll into Europe in the 1940's despite the multiple alliances Germany had made with the Eastern European countries to bring down the powerhouse, didn't matter, because the rest of the superpowers were against Germany. The mere thought of them having to share their power with some plebeian scum just dismayed them so... stupid Oligarchies. But there was also that time when the Ottoman Empire was taking over Eastern Europe and the western European nations aligned themselves to fight them off. Which probably also influenced greatly the decision to send a bunch of explorers west across the Atlantic to try and find a new trade route to india that would subvert the Ottoman Empire. And you can bet your willy nilly that the money gained from the conquests by Cortez and that guy who took over the Incas went specifically to combating the Ottomans.

And let's not forget about the Roman Empire, you remember that time when the Romans were in Germany? Yeah the Romans remembered it too. Teutoburg happened because of an alliance of Germanic Tribes.

And that's just DEFENSIVE PACTS we aren't EVEN talking about Alliances. If I remember right Scotland had for centuries been allied to the French.

My point I'm making is that Casus Belli was an excuse, a poorly drawn up illegitimate excuse made to look legitimate.

So I attack Gotland normally through a fabricated Casus Belli, nobody bats an eye, I declare a holy war against Gotland for a region in Northern Scandinavia? Everyone of the Germanic Pagans loses their shit.

Game Mechanic Flawed, in Total War you don't need Casus Belli because Total War understands politics better than Paradox. I mean by golly if everyone went by the rules of legitimacy why on earth would there ever be a need for an alliance?

I'm raging, raging very hard right now. Raging at how absurd this part of the game is.

 

[Thure]

I can not stress how much I absolute hate this part of the games mechanic, most wars in the medieval period and modern period were and are totally nonsensical and use very loose means to justify conquering vast swaths of land. NO ONE CARED back then what right you had to the land and still the same goes for today!

Source please. Of course the people cared about what right you had to the land.

 

[Quaade]

Have you ever read any of the historic and philosophic/jurisdical arguments that revolves around that period? It wasn´t grab all you can, on the contrary... Claims were quite important, even for the Romans and greeks

 

[Thrake]

Let's see... We have mentioned WW2, the Ottomans Empire, the Roman Empire all that in a medieval context and then it gets down to total war and its famous... Hum... "deep" representation of feudal politics.

 

[Lord Celestine]

Source please. Of course the people cared about what right you had to the land.

The Frankish Invasion of Italy in the late 8th century by Charlemagne who married and divorced a Langobard Princess and had absolutely no right to Italy. In many respects Charlemagne was just a punk, couldn't even keep it up after he died. Declared all those wars, killed all those people and to what end? About three ends, respectively for each nation that was born out of his failure to see his empire maintained after his death. The Romans often saw their emperors overthrown by some rogue general as did the Persians. Khosrow II knew this all to well and then there was Phocus as well, who ruled generally in the same time period as Khosrow, and then after Phocas who overthrew the tightwad Maurice and there was of course Heraclius who overthrew Phocas. The Scandinavians who went viking didn't give two very small copper coins about what right they had to pillage and plunder and settle. The Saxons who invaded and subsequently settled Britain.

The Vandals, the Visigoths, and the Frankish invaders who conquered your beloved Roman Empire. 0 right to those territories didn't stop them from waltzing right on in and making it their home, same thing can be said for the Arabic invaders in the mid 7th century. I don't rightfully know a whole lot of examples pertaining to the middle middle ages but I would imagine the wars constructed by Edward I of England would be just that, wars. The Norman invasions of Ireland and Sicily. the Italian 'unification' the Prussian 'unification' of Germany. (for modern examples) and of course the Civil War in America do to Lincoln not letting the south secede from the Union, very very undemocratic and very much leaning towards imperialism. French, Spanish, British, German, Belgium, Portugal empires that spanned the entire globe. And for antiquity, there is Alexander's conquest of Persia which was just him living off his father's creation if you asked me. Alexander did have the most to gain from his Father's untimely demise, a pretty good war plan all laid out for him, direct ascension to the Macedonian throne and to boot he could just blame it on the Persians.

Have you ever read any of the historic and philosophic/jurisdical arguments that revolves around that period? It wasn´t grab all you can, on the contrary... Claims were quite important, even for the Romans and greeks

I have not and I suspect you haven't either. Greeks couldn't hold a dictatorship together if they tried, just like Charlemagne couldn't hold an empire together! Roman claims to Princesshood did not matter at all, so very many Princesses overthrown and ousted from power, I recall with no nostalgia at all the year of the four emperors and the multitudes of civil wars including the one involving Princess Constantine the Chaste.

Sorry about that, but I do so bloody well hate the Romans, and Charlemagne. The Romans were just so disgustingly POSH.

Perhaps my biggest hatred for the Romans come from the time when the Bulgarian Emperor Simeon offered a marriage proposal that would have united the Roman Empire and the Bulgarian Empire bolstering their forces, but instead of accepting this the Posh Romans refused and got their snobs handed to them, through nefarious trickery they managed to subvert the ire of Simeon from them long enough to outlive his wrath.

How many deaths are worth one marriage? About the lives of 70,000 Roman Soldiers. An idea of union through peaceful means, destroyed and spat on. Kind of like that time Honorius decided to start killing all the 'Barbarians' in the Roman Empire, you know right before Alaric pillaged the hell out of them. Even had Stilicho executed, again, by very nefarious means.

 

[Buladelu]

Can you find any examples from the game timeframe, i.e. High/Late medieval times?

Earlier bookmarks make no sense in game mechanics, that is true. At least example with Charlemagne is explained by in-game events.

 

[Thure]

The Frankish Invasion of Italy in the late 8th century by Charlemagne who married and divorced a Langobard Princess and had absolutely no right to Italy.

Wrong. Charlemagne didn't attack Italy until the LOmbards insulted and threathened the pope. The pope asked Charlemagne to help him. That was the legitimation for the Italian Campaign of Charlemagne. He got his rights to Italy from the pope.

 

[Thrake]

The Vandals, the Visigoths, and the Frankish invaders who conquered your beloved Roman Empire. 0 right to those territories didn't stop them from waltzing right on in and making it their home

You mean like county conquest CB and subjugation CG of pagans? Or prepared invasion of germanic? Pagans don't care, so they get free CBs...

 

[Lord Celestine]

Wrong. Charlemagne didn't attack Italy until the LOmbards insulted and threathened the pope. The pope asked Charlemagne to help him. That was the legitimation for the Italian Campaign of Charlemagne. He got his rights to Italy from the pope.

Right because dishonoring a Langobard Princess was by no means a HUGE insult. For centuries the Pope had always decreed that divorces were bad but this time with Charlemagne the divorce was acceptable, yeah I can't help but feel that Desiderius' hostility towards the Pope was somehow related to this blatant hypocrisy.

So you know, I'm also not a fan of the Papacy either.

You mean like county conquest CB and subjugation CG of pagans? Or prepared invasion of germanic? Pagans don't care, so they get free CBs...

I'm Zoroastrian in the game, fighting the Nordic believers, and even as a Germanic Pagan I still couldn't CB against or Subjugate Gotland after my first king died.

 

[Quaade]

I have not and I suspect you haven't either. Greeks couldn't hold a dictatorship together if they tried, just like Charlemagne couldn't hold an empire together! Roman claims to Princesshood did not matter at all, so very many Princesses overthrown and ousted from power, I recall with no nostalgia at all the year of the four emperors and the multitudes of civil wars including the one involving Princess Constantine the Chaste.

I have, since I did a study for in my free time into just wars around middleages and up to modern ages... You can have a run-down here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

But basically, even if by your standards, you can´t manage to see the justification of the war or the reasoning, doesn´t mean that there wasn´t one or an attempt to do so... Not having a justification (if only for an excuse) would lead to others banding up on you. While it´s true that some empires managed to succed despite of this, it doesn´t change the fact that going nilly-willy into a war with no justification was not well looked upon, and even spiked quite a few wars in order to maintain the balance... Basically, if my rival grows large enough to be a threat, I must stop him by either expanding or intervening, the latter was quite used even in the middle-ages.

This is most commonly seen in the maritime laws that every nation would be subject of, attacking a vessel without being at war or with no justification would make other nations react accordingly... However, justification could be as little as "protect my people on the other side", as most justifications were made into "while I DoW, it´s only in defense" since being the aggressor would always be viewed less by any neighbours or concerned, but having the justification of defending yourself (not like modern term) there were less other nations could do about it.

This is still not less true, just because there are examples of any aggressor, just because these moral codes had a hard time being enforced, due to a different political climate and situation that we are used to, doesn´t mean that there weren´t concerns or discussions among nations.

 

[Assassin739]

Yeah that's my main gripe with the game, the CBs are so annoying. I understand claims are important and all that, but the fact that you have to occupy the whole of their kingdom/empire or whatever to get one province, and then a glorious ten year truce before another one province gets taken. The only way to get good amounts of land is marrying children of rulers to get the claims.

 

[Thure]

Right because dishonoring a Langobard Princess was by no means a HUGE insult. For centuries the Pope had always decreed that divorces were bad but this time with Charlemagne the divorce was acceptable, yeah I can't help but feel that Desiderius' hostility towards the Pope was somehow related to this blatant hypocrisy.

So you know, I'm also not a fan of the Papacy either.

Didn't change the fact that Charlemagne's conquest of Italy was justified. By the pope. The pope had the power to do this. You don't need to be a fan of the papcy to accept this. This was how it worked in the middle ages. And you can already do this in the game.

Even William the Conquerer asked the pope before he conquered England.

 

[Assassin739]

That and the fact that the CK2 Collection doesn't give you all the DLC I just realised

 

[Lord Celestine]

Didn't change the fact that Charlemagne's conquest of Italy was justified. By the pope. The pope had the power to do this. You don't need to be a fan of the papcy to accept this. This was how it worked in the middle ages. And you can already do this in the game.

Even William the Conquerer asked the pope before he conquered England.

Yeah because the word of a man wearing a silly hat and strange vestments is totally a justifiable cause to go to war. It was not justified and it was purely politically driven to gain more land, land which would only be divided upon the aggressors death making him look like a real PUNK.

 

[Thure]

Yeah because the word of a man wearing a silly hat and strange vestments is totally a justifiable cause to go to war. It was not justified and it was purely politically driven to gain more land, land which would only be divided upon the aggressors death making him look like a real PUNK.

So you don't accept how the middle ages work. The pope was the highest authority in the middle ages. Accept it. If he says 'You can take this land' it was ABSOLUTELLY justified.

And the land was divided between his sons because this was how it worked too during this time. It was part of the unwriten law of the Frankish empire that a king divides his land between his sons. This was normal not punk.

 

[JohnKR]

Yeah because the word of a man wearing a silly hat and strange vestments is totally a justifiable cause to go to war. It was not justified and it was purely politically driven to gain more land, land which would only be divided upon the aggressors death making him look like a real PUNK.

lol....just lol man...

Of course it was political...but even in our days you need a very very very complex series of excuses to make war. We now have United Nations, then they had that man with the "silly" hat and strange vestments! Hahahah really that was too low man...you do know that they look silly and strange to you but was really glorious and majestic looking to them, right? You should look at some italian vestments of 16th century and tell me how they look ....

Also i love Total War,it is a very good game but it's terrible in politics...terrible really terrible...there is nothing that's close to history, nothing. Of course that's not bad in a game that's called "Total War". Even the titles is total ahistorical ...

 

[Robert II]

Didn't change the fact that Charlemagne's conquest of Italy was justified. By the pope. The pope had the power to do this. You don't need to be a fan of the papcy to accept this. This was how it worked in the middle ages. And you can already do this in the game.

Even William the Conquerer asked the pope before he conquered England.

Pretty sure Duke/King Willy didn't actually ask or get an OK from the man in the funny hat and dress.

 

[Thure]

Pretty sure Duke/King Willy didn't actually ask or get an OK from the man in the funny hat and dress.

He get the OK afterwards for sure. William of Poitiers claims in his texts that William did get a Papal consent for the conquest. He is the only source for this but this shows that they at least tried to claim to have Papal consent. But even before he haid claims throught his family relations. He didn't just say 'Let's conquere England!'.

 

[Lord Celestine]

So you don't accept how the middle ages work. The pope was the highest authority in the middle ages. Accept it. If he says 'You can take this land' it was ABSOLUTELLY justified.

And the land was divided between his sons because this was how it worked too during this time. It was part of the unwriten law of the Frankish empire that a king divides his land between his sons. This was normal not punk.

Langobards sure didn't seem to think he was the highest Authority, nor did the Byzantine Emperor.

I also don't care what traditions the Franks had, if your empire falls apart after your death, you did not make a very good emperor. Pretty sure Charlemagne murdered his own brother too.

If the Pope was all so powerful at this time, why didn't he command the great Roman Emperor to save his sorry excuse of a hypocritical philosophy from the Langobards? Why did he have to get on his hands and knees and beg Charlemagne to save him? And why did Charlemagne say yes? Ambitious fellow, always remembered as a great leader who accomplished so much, he reminds me really of someone else. Of Alexander, another fellow who probably killed a member of his immediate family (his father) and also couldn't keep an empire together after his death.

Many a king of England also didn't think the pope as the highest authority, remember that time the Anglicans came about? No? How about Protestants in general? And you best believe that the Holy See of Rome was not the 'only' Holy See, there was one for Byzantium, Alexandria, and Jerusalem for quite some time if I remember correctly. Don't know if they were always called Holy Sees but they were the center of the major conflicts in early doctrine.

He get the OK afterwards for sure. William of Poitiers claims in his texts that William did get a Papal consent for the conquest. He is the only source for this but this shows that they at least tried to claim to have Papal consent. But even before he haid claims throught his family relations. He didn't just say 'Let's conquere England!'.

And I never said he didn't have any claims to England did I? I was talking about the Ireland and the Italian invasions. I think the Italian one had something to do with the Pope, the Pope and the Normans were pretty buddy buddy if I remember right.

I will say this, there is one pope I did like. Pope Gregory I.

 

[Robert II]

He get the OK afterwards for sure. William of Poitiers claims in his texts that William did get a Papal consent for the conquest. He is the only source for this but this shows that they at least tried to claim to have Papal consent. But even before he haid claims throught his family relations. He didn't just say 'Let's conquere England!'.

I know about his claims both family and how Willy said he was promised the throne. I just don't believe he did get the okay from the pope before the invasion. If he actually did have the popes backing I would expect more than one source. Though Willy probably did claim the pope said aye go invade the English. Also I'd stop arguing with lord celestine. He smells of trolling.