bobtdwarf said:
I am going to try to reply to two posts here as they are somewhat related.
No, you don't have to have Bohemia's vote muted at all; it would depend upon the situation post Hussite. As I recall it all revolved around putting a check on Austrian power, but was sold to the rest of the electors as something other then that; or at least that was the story they were putting out for general consumption.
If the situation is different you could still have it active or you could have a different house using the same cover story to clip the power of Bavaria and have it muted but from a different angle.
How would it affect things? Well let us look at RL for a guide, after all it is there and it isn't doing anything at the moment so let's put it to work! IRL Austria would start each election cycle with 1-2 votes depending upon year. This would mean that they would not have to kiss all the electors fannies, just a few of them. This would improve their overall bargaining position while at the same time putting them into even more heated competition with house Wittelsbach for the imperial title (it is amazing how close Bavaria would come to getting elected some years, and also amazing how for so many years they were considered the number 2 house in the empire considering their size). And that would play out in some possible different outcomes for events such as the 30 years war.
A couple of comments here.
First, although we don't really have Austria in Interregnum. There are the Hapsburgs as a family, who control Swabia, Tirol and Steiermark, IIRC. This works well, as we already have a rough storyline wherein Swabia and Bavaria don't like each other much. And Swabia can join with Milan eventually forming Lambardia, which could be one of the parts of the HRE that goes against Bavaria in any civil war/religious conflict. We can also posit other powerful families in the Empire, including a resurgent Luxemburg house if we want to. But the principal is the same: there will always be challengers to the title of Emperor, especially when the main family becomes fragmented or the leading candidates are themselves lacking in ability.
Second, currently in Interregnum there are a number of outcomes to the Hussite period. The Hussites can win, for example (something that would be even more likely if Bavaria does not confront them). That could make things very tricky, right? Being Reformed they will have a very different monarch list which does not relate to any of the existing houses. They are effectively out of the picture at this point, their vote effectively muted by the game system. If we follow some of your ideas there will need to be more options in the Hussite conflict, both early on (support from the Emperor) and at the end (who gets it).
A couple of side notes before I continue my thought from the last paragraph; fairly early in the game period Bavaria and Austria came to an agreement on Bohemian succession which guaranteed the Bavarian branch inheritance of Bohemia under certain circumstances. I have never been able to find the details of it but I suspect that it was partially behind the rapid election of Karl to the throne of Bohemia during the war of the Austrian succession.
Not sure this is relevant to our scenario. No War of Austrian Succession, no 30 Years War.
In a timeline in which the Bohemian vote did not get muted, and the election of the Electoral branch of the family still takes place during the 30 years war you have some new math for Maximillian to consider and an easy buy out possibility for the Winter king to offer: Tell Max that he will name him his heir so that both branches will have an electoral vote and the family will rule the empire. Max was above all else ambitious, devout though he may have been he was still ambitious enough to soil his name in the grab of his cousins electorship. Give him an out where he can fulfill his ambition and stick it to the Austrians? Yeah he would likely think about taking it VERY strongly. And if he does that does not bode well for the 30 years war lasting long enough to earn the name. And if he didn't it will make the war of the Austrian succession and the games the Hapsburg's played in putting Maria-Therese on the throne a bit..uh..more. The intensity of the conflict would probably be a bit greater as much more is at stake.
The 30 Years War doesn't mappen in Interregnum. It's also in the mid 1600's which is way out of the timeline we are discussing here. We need to limit ourselves to the period 1420 to 1490 (or parhaps a touch longer). Plus, there are very few scripted events in Europe after 1600, in large part because specific events become increasingly illogical.
Now here is how I see the French electors impacting the Bohemian choices of the Bavarians:
1. Good idea to have it sold to a previous emperor, the Luxemburg's are likely culprits there.
OK, I can rejig the text to reflect this.
2. It would look like to some players in the empire to be what it really IS an anti-Wittelsbach measure(and consider how the Papacy and the family interacted prior to game start I can see it, as I recall it was a Wittelsbach emperor that gave safe passage to Huss, but don't quote me on that). This would not likely bring the family into line with the Pope if you get my meaning.
Yes I do. Let us say that several Popes in the period have been working to ensure that no one family dominates the Emperorship, because this would then lessen the influence of the Papacy.
3. It would increase the odds of Bavaria supporting the Hussites as a means of destroying Papal power in the empire(there would have to be some deals cut with the leadership there but nothing unworkable). If they do it could lead to a much earlier reformation and a ruthless secularization of the ecclesiastical holdings. This would take on an even more gruesome dimension if there is a single Wittlesbach holding the Pfalz and Bavaria or even if we can consider a single hand: Remember when I said the Elector-Palatine had a unique constitutional power? Yeah, it was to declare an emperor deposed. In theory he had the power to remove them as grand steward of the empire; in practice they never had the military might to actually do it. But that is not the case here. It would be a particularly bad day for Sigi...
This is an intriguing storyline. Clearly in such a situation the Elector Palatine would likely depose the Emperor, although the Force Majeur of the Emperor may make this irrelevant. Certainly it would be another moment in the descent into religious/political conflict. Having Protestantism (here political more than theological) occur this early would mean that Reformed religion would need to be more significant, as it would be the only one with a meaningful theological difference, and thereby attract a greater following, I think. It would not be Calvinism, as we probably would want it to emerge a little earlier. But effectively the same thing.
Of course, the deposition could lead to the demise of these House Wittelsbach instead, with protestantism dead until Luther arrives.
If you are really having the Pope go for putting a big old Papal thumb in the Wittelsbach eye (if not the emperor in general), still go with Arles for Savoy (who was already a member of the empire since Savoy is a part of the empire), and give the Burgundians the title of Lothar... it would most definitely ensure that the Burgundians and the Bavarians would not be pals and do the most to damage a Wittelsbach consolidation of power.
Well, there will be folks who dislike losing the name of Savoy in the game, but I have no great attachment to it. I will shift it to Arles, ruled by the House of Savoy. Savoy can be a revolter (though not if Arles exists). As for Burgundy, I think that the title might be King of Burgundy and Lotharingia? In this way it includes the confrontational element but the game can keep Burgundy as its daily title. Maybe?
It also makes for IMHO a more interesting narrative as this brilliant plan on the part of the Pope to keep the empire weaker by making it on paper stronger could in the end bear the bitter fruit of unintended consequence: An early reformation like event and a ruthless consolidation of that families power.
Which has a certain poetic irony to it.
Yes, I like this very much as well. There needs to be an option for the player of Papal States to back away from confronting Bavaria, at least until it challenges it to crusade in Iberia.
So, let's look at the various points of conflict between Pope and Emperor and how they can play out.
1. Hussite War
Bavaria might decide to support the Hussites as a way of challenging Papal authority. If the Pope does little or nothing (during the life of the current Emperor) then nothing really happens, except the Papacy gets a hit to various stats. The issue would be delayed until the election of the next Emperor. Just before the death of Ernst (or the one after him) the Papal States would get an event about whether to scheme to get another family elected. If they chose to do so then a whole series of events are triggered with the elector states which get them to chose between the Wittelsbachs (relation with Bavaria increase) or with another house (relations with Bavaria decrease). Again though, if the Bavarians get the throne then he papacy suffers, triggering the Imperial reaction to strip Papal lands etc and possibly trigger an early 'reformation'. On the other hand, the Emperor could simply be smug about it. Story continues to the Iberian crusade sequence. Finally, the Pope could be successful. If Bavaria does not get the throne, then it gets some bonuses and are main storyline of the Iberian crusade likely doesn't occur (unless its is Savoy/Arles who is emperor, for different reasons) and the game definitely plays out a regular reformation. Victory to the Pope until Luther does a number on him.
2. Iberian Crusade
The Pope's next gambit to challenge Wittelsbach power. It's the "Oh, so you think you're the most powerful guy on the block, eh? Prove it, rid us of Islam in Spain. Pussy." The Pope hopes the (newly elected) Emperor will take the bait and either win (not a bad result for Christendom) or else lose, squandering men and resources and political power along the way and hopefully ending Wittelsbach chances of victory the next time. Really, unless the Wittelsbachs don't take the bait, the Pope sort of can't lose here, at least in the short term. If Bavaria does say no to a crusade, we can have a series of events just before the next election which again get key states to question the Wittelsbachs (cowards!) such that they may lose the post. If they don't, or if they win in Iberia, bingo, the next Emperor begins the creation of a unified Germany. 1460 to 1505.
3. Finally, the Reformation.
We have it at the moment that Bavaria is the uber-Catholic state which will never go Protestant in the normal (or alternative) reformation. Do we want to consider that, with the Wittelsbachs (only them) on the throne, that one of their reactions to the reformation is in fact to force the creation of Germany as a way of supressing the Protestants? If so, this would ignite a 30 years war type scenario, with the Pope backing the creation of Germany and now rely on the Wittelsbachs.
