Just Another Casus Belli Rant

[Alfy]

I'm still wondering why this is called "just another casus belli rant": I've seen a bunch of threads on potential flaws in the existing casus belli mechanics, but threads questioning the very basis of CBs, not that many...

Nothing much to add: OP, you don't get history, and anyway, this game is probably not for you if you're raging that much about one of it's very core mechanics, period.

I still wanted to point out that CBs, in various forms, are still used in every modern conflict. The US did not invade Iraq before providing lengthy, convoluted explanations, and only one ("we're defending ourselves!") before going into Afghanistan: a very good example of 2 different kind of CBs (some say, one real, one made up) being used around the same issue. Russia did not grab Crimea by just stating "it's mine because I want it" even though they could, but went about it in a round about fashion and after-the-fact validation. Even a terrorist group like ISIS bothers to provide detailed reasoning behind the acts of violence they commit, rather than just "we kill because we do".

Heck, call it the need for propaganda to your major influence groups if CB is too complicated a term, but making maintaining the peace the norm and having to rationalise your wars is something that was invented and truly implemented just about at the beginning of the time period the game portrays. This still strongly influences our world today, so yeah, it's a big thing, and I love that I get to play a game that shows me how these principles were developed. If you don't, TW is there for you.

 

[Harassercat]

I read half of this thread and all I can say I disagree with the OP. Crusader Kings 2 is the only game I've played where war isn't on a "just because I can" basis. And I love it. I love CK2 because it's a game of politics rather than a game of war. How many games are out there that simulate historical politics on the scale that CK2 does? I don't know any, except perhaps other Paradox titles (CK2 is my first Paradox game so I couldn't say)? How many games simulate historical warfare, particularly of medieval Europe? Tons, piles of cheap, bad games and a handful of good ones like Total War. I've played so many of those games and they've all failed to deliver quite the sensation that I'm getting out of CK2 as a gamer with big interest in history.

So, if you don't like political mechanics like Casus Belli, may I suggest to stop complaining about the one game that has poliltics and go play Total War or some other war game instead?

 

[Lord Celestine]

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.

Well I am probably the only one here who recognizes asians as Elves or vice versa, so meh.

I'm still wondering why this is called "just another casus belli rant": I've seen a bunch of threads on potential flaws in the existing casus belli mechanics, but threads questioning the very basis of CBs, not that many...

Nothing much to add: OP, you don't get history, and anyway, this game is probably not for you if you're raging that much about one of it's very core mechanics, period.

I still wanted to point out that CBs, in various forms, are still used in every modern conflict. The US did not invade Iraq before providing lengthy, convoluted explanations, and only one ("we're defending ourselves!") before going into Afghanistan: a very good example of 2 different kind of CBs (some say, one real, one made up) being used around the same issue. Russia did not grab Crimea by just stating "it's mine because I want it" even though they could, but went about it in a round about fashion and after-the-fact validation. Even a terrorist group like ISIS bothers to provide detailed reasoning behind the acts of violence they commit, rather than just "we kill because we do".

Heck, call it the need for propaganda to your major influence groups if CB is too complicated a term, but making maintaining the peace the norm and having to rationalise your wars is something that was invented and truly implemented just about at the beginning of the time period the game portrays. This still strongly influences our world today, so yeah, it's a big thing, and I love that I get to play a game that shows me how these principles were developed. If you don't, TW is there for you.

Perhaps instead of judging my knowledge on the subject of history, perhaps you should consider that it is I who knows more about history than you? Hit the argument not the man.

The reason why Casus Belli is such a HUGE and important thing today is because people are led to believe that fighting and DYING for their country is an HONORABLE thing to do! Kind of hard for it to be honorable though if your nation is fighting for less than reputable causes which is pretty much every war of the 20th century save for one.

Knights although they are considered Chivalrous and Honorable and all that good stuff, well many of them came in all sorts of colors, and MOST of them were very self serving if I might say so their entire livelihood quite so depended on serving in a lord's army for money and probably land. If their lord wanted to take over a lesser lord for his land it meant that their share would also likely increase. Therefore Casus Belli is like one big circle jerk, and the game puts WAY to much emphasis on it.

On the point about me not knowing a thing about history, at least I know that ISIS is a mercenary group and NOT a terrorist group. Once the stream of cash stops flowing their way, they'll disband. That and most Terrorist groups of today are designed for the sole purpose of validating a Casus Belli as you call it. Cui Bono - Lucius Cassius

 

[A Swedish Goat]

You are direly misinformed about not only the basics upon which you are arguing, both on general knowledge of modern day political and international news.

ISIS (Or IS if you call them by the Islamic State) is a group of radicals whom believe they are reforming a "proper" country of their own, and attempting to reform the Caliphate in their own way. They have claimed far more land than some care to speak about, and even can power a country with some of the power plants and all of the money and manpower they have gained. They are as much a mercenary group as a high school football team, literally not at all.

And judging from how your arguments stray far from the initial topic each and every post you make, it may be for the best to step away from the forums and hit a good book or peer reviewed article to learn some new stuff. May help back the argument you are looking for. CB's are important in not only modern or medieval day history and warfare, but have been used as far back as we could ever imagine. Why did the conflicts arise between the peoples of one region next to another? Resources, to provide for the people, to keep people safe and fed. We have always looked for reasons, and rarely has it occurred that someone has gone to war solely to "go to war". Those individuals will live in history for their actions, and serve as a lesson as to why reasoning behind our actions is and always has been an important part of us humans.

 

[Lord Celestine]

You are direly misinformed about not only the basics upon which you are arguing, both on general knowledge of modern day political and international news.

ISIS (Or IS if you call them by the Islamic State) is a group of radicals whom believe they are reforming a "proper" country of their own, and attempting to reform the Caliphate in their own way. They have claimed far more land than some care to speak about, and even can power a country with some of the power plants and all of the money and manpower they have gained. They are as much a mercenary group as a high school football team, literally not at all.

And judging from how your arguments stray far from the initial topic each and every post you make, it may be for the best to step away from the forums and hit a good book or peer reviewed article to learn some new stuff. May help back the argument you are looking for. CB's are important in not only modern or medieval day history and warfare, but have been used as far back as we could ever imagine. Why did the conflicts arise between the peoples of one region next to another? Resources, to provide for the people, to keep people safe and fed. We have always looked for reasons, and rarely has it occurred that someone has gone to war solely to "go to war". Those individuals will live in history for their actions, and serve as a lesson as to why reasoning behind our actions is and always has been an important part of us humans.

I will get back to this comment, but first I must sleep.

 

[Quaade]

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 there´s a difference from Nords and Nordic, which is why Scandinavian had it a bit rough with term Norse in CK2... It´s equal to using the n-word... Besides, it most of the times would refer to Norwegians in the same matter as the n-word, hence why it´s not used... So in short, you suddenly sound like you refer to norwegians in petty way, and you don´t have the slightest idea of how the rest of the world does things...

 

[Harassercat]

On the whole Nord/Nordic/Norse discussion...

First, look up "Nord" and "Norse" on Wikipedia. For the former term, the closest you get to a meaning similar to early medieval Scandinavians is

• Nord (Elder Scrolls), one of the races in the Elder Scrolls fantasy setting.

For the latter term however,

• Norsemen, the Scandinavian people before the Christianisation of Scandinavia
  • Medieval Norwegians

So, "Norsemen" and "Norse" culture. The culture names are in adjective form already, e.g. "French", "Russian" and not "Frenchmen" or "Russians". The shared language of early medieval Scandinavia is also generally referred to as "Old Norse", which then splits into Old Icelandic, Old Norwegian, Old Swedish, etc.

If you want to respond with the very outdated "Wikipedia is not an authoritative source..." argument then go ahead. In fact then I encourage you to go edit the Wikipedia and correct their error, citing the respectable academic sources that I suppose you have to support your use of the 'Nord' term.

In the actual historical sources then people were typically identified by which part of Scandinavia they were from, so they might be Danish or Geatish (Gautar or Götar) or Norwegian, etc. But when distinguishing them from people from other parts of Europe they would sometimes be called norrœnir menn, literally "Northern men".

 

[Alfy]

Knights although they are considered Chivalrous and Honorable and all that good stuff, well many of them came in all sorts of colors, and MOST of them were very self serving if I might say so their entire livelihood quite so depended on serving in a lord's army for money and probably land. If their lord wanted to take over a lesser lord for his land it meant that their share would also likely increase. Therefore Casus Belli is like one big circle jerk, and the game puts WAY to much emphasis on it.

Sigh...

First, you are going to have to understand the importance between personal and potentially hidden motivations and external appearances. No one here is stating that knights were necessarily champions of justice at heart, and every time you come up with such arguments, it sounds silly, because, well, duh.

Secondly, and although the concept certainly predates the Francs and is not circumscribed to Western Europe, the concept of a nobility whose main purpose is to uphold the peace becomes enshrined at the beginning of the middle-ages in that area. This is due to a combination of factors, from the spread of renewed Christian ideals to the continuation of the Franc order as a replacement to the old Pax Romana and so on. Insuring the safety of the peasants and the land is LITERALLY the job number 1 of the nobility, the very basis of the feudal contract.

Of course if does not mean the nobility suddenly became a bunch of do-gooders. But it very much means that you had to APPEAR to behave righteously to everyone who mattered, your peers, the church, and later on the bourgeoisie. So you had to have have an excuse to grab land, one that answered a legal code, and even if everyone suspected your excuses were made up, that was alright, they were doing the same after all. But if you did not have a legalistic reason at all, everyone, and especially your rivals, were all too happy to call you an unchristian and unlawful land-grabber, and you can imagine how that ended.

As it happens, similar principles applied to most of the territories represented in CKII, with exceptions which are represented in the game by being given free "Conquest CBs". Sure, it's an abstraction, but of all the abstractions the game makes, CBs is actually a pretty good one.

Now, it seems you can't get your head around all this. The only thing I can say to that, is please, please, GO READ A BOOK.

 

[King Wanderer]

I'm a day removed from this conversation, but...

Are we just going to ignore that he called Asian people "elves"?

 

[shiro the bushi]

I'm a day removed from this conversation, but...

Are we just going to ignore that he called Asian people "elves"?

one thing at a time

 

[Quaade]

I'm a day removed from this conversation, but...

Are we just going to ignore that he called Asian people "elves"?

one thing at a time

nope... but well... most references are from fantasy games anyway and at least asian-elves is so far out that I'm not sure how to respond

 

[Iron Chariots]

I'm a day removed from this conversation, but...

Are we just going to ignore that he called Asian people "elves"?

Yeah... I just assumed I was missing something and was unclear as to what he meant there, but I suspect that I actually got it and it really is that dumb.

 

[King Wanderer]

What, you don't remember how the Han Dynasty defeated Sauron at the gates of Mount Doom..?

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

I'm a day removed from this conversation, but...

Are we just going to ignore that he called Asian people "elves"?

Don't know why he would even mention them.

Considering at this period the Chinese were more united (aka Europe except whole,) technologically superior, and vastly more organized than Europe or even Arabia at this time.......

Hell Han and Roman Empire were compared to one another in empire size/glory......yet the Tang in this era exceeded that size, to give you an idea.

Sounds about right. To Dark Age Europeans they would probably feel extremely uncultured if they visited such a place.

Much like men visiting elves.

 

[shiro the bushi]

jesus this is a weird thread

 

[King Wanderer]

You're telling me.

 

[Lord Celestine]

You are direly misinformed about not only the basics upon which you are arguing, both on general knowledge of modern day political and international news.

ISIS (Or IS if you call them by the Islamic State) is a group of radicals whom believe they are reforming a "proper" country of their own, and attempting to reform the Caliphate in their own way. They have claimed far more land than some care to speak about, and even can power a country with some of the power plants and all of the money and manpower they have gained. They are as much a mercenary group as a high school football team, literally not at all.

And judging from how your arguments stray far from the initial topic each and every post you make, it may be for the best to step away from the forums and hit a good book or peer reviewed article to learn some new stuff. May help back the argument you are looking for. CB's are important in not only modern or medieval day history and warfare, but have been used as far back as we could ever imagine. Why did the conflicts arise between the peoples of one region next to another? Resources, to provide for the people, to keep people safe and fed. We have always looked for reasons, and rarely has it occurred that someone has gone to war solely to "go to war". Those individuals will live in history for their actions, and serve as a lesson as to why reasoning behind our actions is and always has been an important part of us humans.

Okay I'm back

I've decided not go into the topic of ISIS here, on a gaming forum, but I will say this one thing you really need to study political science more. I know there isn't any John Lennon these days to tell you what the government is doing behind its closed doors, and I know you were probably born after the cold war. Literally all the wars of the cold war were because 'They're Communists!', Vietnam, Korea, the United States backing Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Literally the dozens of dictatorships that sprung up around the world including Gaddafi, Sadam Hussein, and the Iranian shah all products of the cold war.

Now what country in the middle east absolutely despises the United States? Iran

Why is Syria well not really Syria I suppose but why is Al-Assad so important? Because he's allied with Iran

In the Afghan-Iraqi war, Iran was centered RIGHT in the middle of it, and Bush invaded Iraq on the sole claim of 'weapons of mass destruction', and that Sadam was 'housing terrorists'

None of which were true as it ended up turning out but hey! Sadam was an evil bad dictator anyways so who cares?

The 'war on terrorism'? Try more like a war OF terror, given that it is such a blanket expression that it would quite frankly allows the United States to invade ANY country in the world. Just like 'Communism' did.

So yeah, you say I don't know what I'm talking about? Yet here are two Casus Belli that circumvent any one nation, allowing the mighty and powerful United States to go rampaging around as it pleased.

Because there´s a difference from Nords and Nordic, which is why Scandinavian had it a bit rough with term Norse in CK2... It´s equal to using the n-word... Besides, it most of the times would refer to Norwegians in the same matter as the n-word, hence why it´s not used... So in short, you suddenly sound like you refer to norwegians in petty way, and you don´t have the slightest idea of how the rest of the world does things...

Yeah you go back in time and call a Roman a Byzantine, see how well that works out for you, if someone wanted to call me a Nord or Nordic I'd be happy that they're recognizing my ancestry! Though it's quite lengthy and back in the day it still pleases me. For your information, the n-word just comes from the Latin word meaning Black. Our names for people are generally not very well thought out but hey there it is.

Don't know why he would even mention them.

Considering at this period the Chinese were more united (aka Europe except whole,) technologically superior, and vastly more organized than Europe or even Arabia at this time.......

Sounds about right. To Dark Age Europeans they would probably feel extremely uncultured if they visited such a place.

Much like visiting elves.

Yeah except Dark Age Europeans had asians sitting right next to them dude.

The Huns and the Avars, and by the way the 'NORSE' word for elf is Alfar, and they had a little leader at one time called Organa, Morganna the fairy queen and Organa the Avar.

Alfar-Avar Morganna-Organa

 

[Quaade]

Yeah you go back in time and call a Roman a Byzantine, see how well that works out for you, if someone wanted to call me a Nord or Nordic I'd be happy that they're recognizing my ancestry! Though it's quite lengthy and back in the day it still pleases me. For your information, the n-word just comes from the Latin word meaning Black. Our names for people are generally not very well thought out but hey there it is.

Nords is not a term, it´s not a word besides mount & blade and Skyrim... You refer to us by a fictional term, which is not only insulting that you keep doing it... But that you refer to it as our heritage and ancestry and should be proud about it!?... Well, hell yeah... If there were dragons flying about, I´d be pretty proud at calling me a nord, but this is earth... The correct term is Norse (for the old) and Nordic (for the new)... But really, that´s to be suspected by a people who refer to native americans as indians and are on a great roll for having Trump as president... It doesn´t matter how the world is, it only matter what america thinks of it... Saddening really...

The Huns and the Avars, and by the way the 'NORSE' word for elf is Alfar, and they had a little leader at one time called Organa, Morganna the fairy queen and Organa the Avar.

Alfar-Avar Morganna-Organa

You are puffing some serious shit there, I mean... Breaking Bad shit... Making the conclusion that Alfar is the same as Avar since it has some letters that are similar and Organna and Morganna is the same since they share some letters too... Wow... If it was that easy, I don´t understand why they even do so much research into these things... They could just list similar words and be done with it...

Seriosly, this is really far out and you should really stop...

EDIT: Did a quick check on Organna... Is a male... Morganna I´m pretty sure was a lady... Well woman at least... And it´s based on Irish folklore... So a bit far off from Avar

 

[Lord Celestine]

Nords is not a term, it´s not a word besides mount & blade and Skyrim... You refer to us by a fictional term, which is not only insulting that you keep doing it... But that you refer to it as our heritage and ancestry and should be proud about it!?... Well, hell yeah... If there were dragons flying about, I´d be pretty proud at calling me a nord, but this is earth... The correct term is Norse (for the old) and Nordic (for the new)... But really, that´s to be suspected by a people who refer to native americans as indians and are on a great roll for having Trump as president... It doesn´t matter how the world is, it only matter what america thinks of it... Saddening really...
You are puffing some serious shit there, I mean... Breaking Bad shit... Making the conclusion that Alfar is the same as Avar since it has some letters that are similar and Organna and Morganna is the same since they share some letters too... Wow... If it was that easy, I don´t understand why they even do so much research into these things... They could just list similar words and be done with it...

Seriosly, this is really far out and you should really stop...

EDIT: Did a quick check on Organna... Is a male... Morganna I´m pretty sure was a lady... Well woman at least... And it´s based on Irish folklore... So a bit far off from Avar

Oh I see, so NORDIC is okay but NORD is wrong? If you want to refer to yourself as Nordic and the Gaels as Gaelic then I'm going to call you guys Nords because of the Gael-Gaelic relationship. It's the equivalent of saying hey you should call me American but don't use the word America.

And you see, that generalization you made about Americans calling Natives indians, I call them Native Americans, and I prefer to refer to Indians as Hindi just so there is no confusion.

Yeah well I mean if it honestly just was the Organa and Morganna part I'd be more inclined to side with you but...

Well you see there's also the Authari/King Arthur relationship.

Authari being a King of the Langobards who existed just a brief time before Organa did (historically speaking)

King Arthur and Authari have quite a lot in common, quite a lot, if you were so interested that you looked up Organa I implore you to look up Authari as well. Could tell you a bit more about him than Wikipedia myself though as I read the Historia Langobardorum.

Also that whole Organa being a male and Morganna a female well, that's just the thing, that part really doesn't matter. King Arthur was a man too, but that didn't stop the Japanese from gender bending him. I like to think of it as the world coming full circle.

Also according to wikipedia at least, Elves and Fairies were quite closely related in terms of mythology at one point, certainly when you think of Morgan-le-fey you don't think of a little tiny fairy with butterfly wings do you? And she certainly is never portrayed as such.

"In English literature of the Elizabethan era, elves became conflated with the fairies of Romance culture, so that the two terms began to be used interchangeably. German Romanticist writers were influenced by this notion of the 'elf', and reimported the English word elf in that context into the German language. In Scandinavia, probably through a process of euphemism, elves often came to be conflated with the beings called the huldra or huldufólk. Meanwhile, German folklore has tended to see the conflation of elves with dwarfs.[4]"

"These all come from an Indo-European base *albh-, and seem to be connected by whiteness. The Germanic word presumably originally meant 'white person', perhaps as a euphemism."

(From the wiki page on elf)

Now I posted that last part here because I thought it was relevant as the Avars were also known as the White Huns.

 

[Quaade]

Oh I see, so NORDIC is okay but NORD is wrong? If you want to refer to yourself as Nordic and the Gaels as Gaelic then I'm going to call you guys Nords because of the Gael-Gaelic relationship. It's the equivalent of saying hey you should call me American but don't use the word America.

And you see, that generalization you made about Americans calling Natives indians, I call them Native Americans, and I prefer to refer to Indians as Hindi just so there is no confusion.

Yeah well I mean if it honestly just was the Organa and Morganna part I'd be more inclined to side with you but...

Well you see there's also the Authari/King Arthur relationship.

Authari being a King of the Langobards who existed just a brief time before Organa did (historically speaking)

King Arthur and Authari have quite a lot in common, quite a lot, if you were so interested that you looked up Organa I implore you to look up Authari as well. Could tell you a bit more about him than Wikipedia myself though as I read the Historia Langobardorum.

could also refer to you as an ameri...