Just Another Casus Belli Rant

[Iron Chariots]

Even if i granted that the romans had no use for casus belli (and i do not, because this is completely absurd, given historical sources), so what? Is CK2 about ancient diplomacy or medieval diplomacy?

I know it's not exactly the same thing, but I feel like this xkcd is relevant: https://xkcd.com/771/

Basically, OP, like many people who are not knowledgeable about history, is just lumping all time periods other than the present into the interchangeable past.

 

[Quaade]

Do you know what is funny? With a single exception, you keep using examples that have nothing to do whatsoever with the times depicted in the game, and the exception itself is already portrayed in the game (mongols have a myriad of cbs which translate exactly into what you want).

Even if i granted that the romans had no use for casus belli (and i do not, because this is completely absurd, given historical sources), so what? Is CK2 about ancient diplomacy or medieval diplomacy?

Talking about expansion in modern times? Really? I mean, really? Even Hitler needed his CB to attack Poland, and you actually think people don't care about CBs? And even if they didn't (which is obviously not true), so what? Is CK2 about modern diplomacy or medieval diplomacy?

If you want to discuss a game about medieval times, then stay on topic. Provide us with a SINGLE reliable source indicating a conflict in the middle ages fought over no apparent reason, and we will gladly concede the point.

Or you can stop this nonsense altogether and actually read a book for a change...

romans did however have a less restrictive use for CB against uncivilized, but it wasn't totally absent. Much like natives in America was not deemed member of nations and thus could freely be conquered (school of Salamanca I believe and was not majority), but this only shows that they had to argue from a point of view of needing a CB instead of simply attacking, they needed a justification that other nations could buy...

Also, there is wars that happened with next to no CB, even among same faith and culture, however those are some rare exceptions and far from the norm and if a Lord kept doing so, he would be met by revolts or conquest. So those rare exceptions were only for small patches of land, which normally fell under border disputes anyway...

 

[Shebaloso]

romans did however have a less restrictive use for CB against uncivilized, but it wasn't totally absent. Much like natives in America was not deemed member of nations and thus could freely be conquered (school of Salamanca I believe and was not majority), but this only shows that they had to argue from a point of view of needing a CB instead of simply attacking, they needed a justification that other nations could buy...

Also, there is wars that happened with next to no CB, even among same faith and culture, however those are some rare exceptions and far from the norm and if a Lord kept doing so, he would be met by revolts or conquest. So those rare exceptions were only for small patches of land, which normally fell under border disputes anyway...

It's not simply a matter of less restrictive casus belli policies, but instrisic cultural values. In the most extreme cases, we have examples such as the ancient eurasian peoples, who actually pursued conflict as a means of living. What OP fails to realise is that this is the casus belli itself. The very notion, for example, that other people are savages and/or prone to be conquered is a casus belli in itself.

 

[Lord Celestine]

It's not simply a matter of less restrictive casus belli policies, but instrisic cultural values. In the most extreme cases, we have examples such as the ancient eurasian peoples, who actually pursued conflict as a means of living. What OP fails to realise is that this is the casus belli itself. The very notion, for example, that other people are savages and/or prone to be conquered is a casus belli in itself.

Or that the lightly defended fertile lands of the late western Roman Empire did not have any allure to Germanic tribes that conquered them?

Not to mention that part where I said I'm playing as the Nords and as Zoroastrians which I feel should not restrict my 'Casus Belli' yet it does, and terribly so at that! Holy War. All of Central Europe in Arms, when I am in Scandinavia. I get it I really do, Paradox wants to try and equalize the game, well you know how Total War did it? If you declared war on your christian neighbors you got excommunicated. But this did not have an effect on non-christians, who could declare war on you without the Holy War gambit.

Speaking of Holy Wars. Holy Wars... Zoroastrianism... it just sounds so... strange.

 

[King Wanderer]

Look, minor historical twinge.

They're not called the "Nords." No one calls them the "Nords." The Nords live in Skyrim, and don't like Elves.

You're talking about the "Norse."

For the love of Talos, get it right next time.

 

[shiro the bushi]

Look, minor historical twinge.

They're not called the "Nords." No one calls them the "Nords." The Nords live in Skyrim, and don't like Elves.

You're talking about the "Norse."

For the love of Talos, get it right next time.

thank you....this was driving me mad but i didnt know how to word it

 

[Iron Chariots]

They're not called the "Nords." No one calls them the "Nords." The Nords live in Skyrim, and don't like Elves.

False. They live in Calradia, and they drink from your skull.

 

[shiro the bushi]

False. They live in Calradia, and they drink from your skull.

everyone knows the Swadians are the true successors to the empire

 

[King Anund]

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.

Have you read anything about the Medieval period?

 

[Lord Celestine]

Look, minor historical twinge.

They're not called the "Nords." No one calls them the "Nords." The Nords live in Skyrim, and don't like Elves.

You're talking about the "Norse."

For the love of Talos, get it right next time.

Nope playing the 'When the World stopped making Sense Mod' which has a faction in Scandinavia called Nords.

And while we ARE on that subject. Norse means north, Nord means north just in different languages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsemen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord

Nord is North in Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German (and Italian which is probably from you know the Langobards and Gothic presence)

So when you say Norse you're referring to your own language which is English and it's not exactly what they would have called themselves, not that they called themselves Northmen or perhaps they did but if they did they would have pronounced it differently than you do and so there is a history lesson I hope you don't forget.

Have you read anything about the Medieval period?

mainly of the early medieval period.

 

[King Anund]

mainly of the early medieval period.

Well even for Late Antiquity there were Justifications for war, most of them religious. For example, the Franks expelled the Visigoths from South France because they were Arian Heretics. Justinian attacked both the Vandal and the Ostrogothic kingdom because the imprisonment and assassination of pro-roman rulers in both kingdoms.
The visigothic king Liuvigild conquered the Suevian kingdom because they supported the revolt of his own son Hermengild. There is even much more

All war always has a justification. It is such a waste o money and people to not have at least an excuse.

 

[Lord Celestine]

Have you read anything about the Medieval period?

Well even for Late Antiquity there were Justifications for war, most of them religious. For example, the Franks expelled the Visigoths from South France because they were Arian Heretics. Justinian attacked both the Vandal and the Ostrogothic kingdom because the imprisonment and assassination of pro-roman rulers in both kingdoms.
The visigothic king Liuvigild conquered the Suevian kingdom because they supported the revolt of his own son Hermengild. There is even much more

All war always has a justification. It is such a waste o money and people to not have at least an excuse.

Ah I remember Hermengild, what a sod! Tried rebelling against his own old aged father! He could have like just waited a year and the old fart would have keeled over dead and the kingdom would be his buuuuut nooooo some stupid bishop just had to go start trouble. Bishop never got whacked in the end though, pretty safe times for bishops I'd say. Hermengild on the other hand kind of signed his own death. No pun intended, because a Visigothic king later lost his hand! And subsequently his life in a dispute for the throne. Forget which one it was, but I believe it was in the 600's. So what was that whole war between Clothar I his brothers and the Burgundians then?

I'm not saying that you don't need an excuse for war, but if the game can't realistically portray this then it should just leave it to the role playing aspect of the game.

 

[King Anund]

Ah I remember Hermengild, what a sod! Tried rebelling against his own old aged father! He could have like just waited a year and the old fart would have keeled over dead and the kingdom would be his buuuuut nooooo some stupid bishop just had to go start trouble. Bishop never got whacked in the end though, pretty safe times for bishops I'd say. Hermengild on the other hand kind of signed his own death. No pun intended, because a Visigothic king later lost his hand! And subsequently his life in a dispute for the throne. Forget which one it was, but I believe it was in the 600's. So what was that whole war between Clothar I his brothers and the Burgundians then?

I'm not saying that you don't need an excuse for war, but if the game can't realistically portray this then it should just leave it to the role playing aspect of the game.

I'll forget that simple conception of Saint Hermengild's revolt, which does nothing but strengthen the 'Casus Belli' cause.

The burgundian war had more to do with King Saint Segismund messing around in his kingdom with it's anti arianism. Burgundy was also invaded at the insitgation of Clotilde, daughter of the former king of Burgundy, which would give a claim to her frankish sons.

 

[Griff Lancer]

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.

That's because Skyrim belongs to the Nord's!
Talos guides us!

 

[jusuu]

But I'm playing as the Zoroastrians, and the NORDS! Why are my only options Holy War? Zoroastrians didn't care! The Persians conquered because they could! Just like the Romans did, because as I stated earlier the Byzantine Emperor did NOT adhere to the Pope? Why? Because in Byzantium (also another reason I don't like calling Constantinople that is because you guys do call the Romans as Byzantines, so I figure why not call the city Byzantium to while we're at it I mean it does make sense if you think about it since we called the Romans as the Romans because their capital was the city of Rome and we call the Byzantines such because they changed capitals.) but anyways in Byzantium the Roman Emperor was THE POPE. Or might as well have been, great schism and all that good stuff, if he wanted to declare war he bloody well could for any bloody reason, same way with the Persians.

P.S. I just want you to know though, that the Byzantines still called themselves until the very end, Romans.

I just like to point out both the Parthians a'd Sassanids made a reasoning for the creation of their empires

 

[Quaade]

Nord is North in Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and German (and Italian which is probably from you know the Langobards and Gothic presence)

Yes, nord is north in Scandinavia, but it´s still a tad racist to be using the Nords on us, and is not in any way a correct way of refering to us...

We don´t walk around and call ourselfes, mainly because it´s stupid people don´t call them self Souths

 

[Lord Celestine]

Yes, nord is north in Scandinavia, but it´s still a tad racist to be using the Nords on us, and is not in any way a correct way of refering to us...

We don´t walk around and call ourselfes, mainly because it´s stupid people don´t call them self Souths

Clearly you've never been to the Southern states in the United States.

Southerners

Anyways I did state that I was playing a mod that did have a faction called the Nords in it, and well to be honest with you, I think you should be paying a little more attention rather than making insults where none exist.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

Clearly you've never been to the Southern states in the United States.

Southerners

Anyways I did state that I was playing a mod that did have a faction called the Nords in it, and well to be honest with you, I think you should be paying a little more attention rather than making insults where none exist.

OK for your mod... maybe this is a good justification (although it does not facilitate communication with people not using it).

However, justifying the use of Nords with the USA is somewhat lousy. First, I'm not Scandinavian but I'm not sure Nords means Nordics (given Quaade's previous message). So... not really comparable to Southerners. You don't use Souths to refer to people from Southern states in the USA. Second, it just does not work in Europe: If you say Nordics or Nordic People (which is a nicer and more positive way to put it), people don't really know if you refer to only Scandinavians or if you include Finnishs, Estonians and Latvians (Northern Europe usually include them)...
Here we can understand what you mean since Nords is quite close from Norse (which is the term CK2 uses... so this is our common basis)... But I guess it can irritate some of us. Don't be surprised.

Finally yes, some things you write in a single message (the part where you talk about the mod) is not properly integrated and we don't keep in mind everything you say; Nobody can pay attention to every small detail (even if it can become relevant at some point of the conversation). Besides, to be honest, you are sometimes hard to follow, so this is not surprising either.

 

[Lord Celestine]

OK for your mod... maybe this is a good justification (although it does no facilitate communication with people not using it).

However, justifying the use of Nords with the USA is somewhat lousy. First, I'm not Scandinavian but I'm not sure Nords means Nordics (given Quaade's previous message). So... not really comparable to Southerners. You don't use Souths to refer to people from Southern states in the USA. Second, it just does not work in Europe: If you say Nordics or Nordic People (which is a nicer and more positive way to put it), people don't really know if you refer to only Scandinavians or if you include Finnishs, Estonians and Latvians (Northern Europe usually include them)...
Here we can understand what you mean since Nords is quite close from Norse (which is the term CK2 uses... so this is our common basis)... But I guess it can irritate some of us. Don't be surprised.

Finally yes, some things you write in a single message (the part where you talk about the mod) is not properly integrated and we don't keep in mind everything you say; Nobody can pay attention to every small detail (even if it can become relevant at some point of the conversation). Besides, to be honest, you are sometimes hard to follow, so this is not surprising either.

Yeah because I can see how calling them Norsemen is so much more politically correct... literally you're calling them north men. I also talked about why I call Constantinople Byzantium, because people insist on calling the Eastern Roman Empire as the Byzantines because their capital was Constantinople which was formerly known as Byzantium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries

If you ever have trouble identifying people associated with the generalization of the word Nordic, and I don't see why it should be considered any less for use in conversation than say Gaels which is plural for Gael. Now why don't I use the word Nordic?

Because Gaelic is this.

of or relating to the Goidelic languages

and this

a Goidelic language brought from Ireland in the 5th and 6th centuries

So yes if I wanted to say Gaelic culture or Gaelic history I would be saying the history of the people who spoke Gaelic or the culture of those who speak Gaelic. But if I was going to talk about the people in general it would be much more proper I believe to say Gaels or in this case. NORDS. Now I don't like being called American but you don't see me pouting now do you? People call me that because that is the geographical location in which I live.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

Re-read me... I talked about Northern Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe) and how people from these countries are commonly called in Europe (at least in some of its countries).
My point is much more about comprehensiveness than geographical terminology (the difference between academic and everyday life language)... If for some random reason, you absolutely want to use one terminology that is different than the common ground terminology of CK2 players, feel free to do it. Just, don't be surprised if what you say is not well received because of impaired clarity or negative connotations in the everyday life language.

Dunno why you talk about the Gaels... Gaels is the widely accepted terminology (with the more formal Gaelic People). Nords is not.

For me, no point continuing further on this topic.