Ok. The point though is that a non-HRE member could lead it.
- 1
Ottomans is in the Catholic League
- Thread starter Monkbel
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
From a historical perspective definitely not - the situation was more similar to no Ottoman interference at all than to full scale invasion of Austria by all Ottoman armies. Ottoman forces were tied up on other fronts during almost the entire duration of the Thirty Years' War, with the Safavids under Shah Abbas having launched devastating campaigns against the Ottoman eastern provinces in the years leading up to 1618. By 1620, there was war with Poland and then the murder of Osman II, sending the empire into crisis with the revolt of Abaza Mehmed Pasha, then then the resumption of the Persian wars in 1624. This lasted until 1639, and the few years of peace before the outbreak of war with Venice in 1645 were occupied with Cossack attacks and rebellion in Anatolia.
Really - the Ottomans did not intervene in the Thirty Years' War. Transylvania did in their capacity to act independently of Ottoman influence.
I've said this many times before and I'll keep copying this text over every time someone makes a new thread until people stop making this claim.
- 5
- 1
- 1
Interesting. I am pretty confident there will be no war - protestants are too wimpy in my game, too afraid to attack catholics (and me). Already 10 years passed since the leagues were introduced, no war.
- 1
This is absolutely correct. Also the french involvement in the 30 years war was only!!! A monetary contribution. They did not take part in any battles or were Co-belligerents of any of the four wars.From a historical perspective definitely not - the situation was more similar to no Ottoman interference at all than to full scale invasion of Austria by all Ottoman armies. Ottoman forces were tied up on other fronts during almost the entire duration of the Thirty Years' War, with the Safavids under Shah Abbas having launched devastating campaigns against the Ottoman eastern provinces in the years leading up to 1618. By 1620, there was war with Poland and then the murder of Osman II, sending the empire into crisis with the revolt of Abaza Mehmed Pasha, then then the resumption of the Persian wars in 1624. This lasted until 1639, and the few years of peace before the outbreak of war with Venice in 1645 were occupied with Cossack attacks and rebellion in Anatolia.
Really - the Ottomans did not intervene in the Thirty Years' War. Transylvania did in their capacity to act independently of Ottoman influence.
I've said this many times before and I'll keep copying this text over every time someone makes a new thread until people stop making this claim.
- 5
- 1
Its because often when the HRE leaders got too big for their boots the oppressed members would usually ask for outside help from a powerful nearby nation, who would usually jump at the chance to help knock the power of the region off its perch a bit like if bohemian were to ally France in the game
No need.
It's an interesting event, not everyone is a history major or looks up the stuff before playing the game and most people that buy EU4 on Steam sales and then fall in love with it don't always know history that much. I, myself, find history as a hobby.
Anyway, this thread is enough
Nope they definitevely participated to the war, after the end of of the internal troubles (such as the rebellion of la Rochelle) and the defeat of the Swedish at Nordlingen which made them fear that the Habsburg would dominate Europe.
Some battle of the 30 years war involving French.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leuven
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Thionville
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rocroi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zusmarshausen
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lens
Well at least all history books/sites I read say the french did get involved militarily in the war, but only in the second half of it after Sweden got resourceless and probably could no longer continue to fight on their own.
The French did join the war after 1635, so their period of direct intervention covered almost the entire second half of the conflict.
From a historical perspective definitely not - the situation was more similar to no Ottoman interference at all than to full scale invasion of Austria by all Ottoman armies. Ottoman forces were tied up on other fronts during almost the entire duration of the Thirty Years' War, with the Safavids under Shah Abbas having launched devastating campaigns against the Ottoman eastern provinces in the years leading up to 1618. By 1620, there was war with Poland and then the murder of Osman II, sending the empire into crisis with the revolt of Abaza Mehmed Pasha, then then the resumption of the Persian wars in 1624. This lasted until 1639, and the few years of peace before the outbreak of war with Venice in 1645 were occupied with Cossack attacks and rebellion in Anatolia.
Really - the Ottomans did not intervene in the Thirty Years' War. Transylvania did in their capacity to act independently of Ottoman influence.
I've said this many times before and I'll keep copying this text over every time someone makes a new thread until people stop making this claim.
This is simply correct though. The Ottomans were in reality neutral during the conflict - in fact bound to do so by treaty, overtures to any side were just empty words. Kind of like the wikipedia quotes. People should start reading actual books rather than quote halfhearted wikipages, highschool history doesn't exactly live up to high standards...
So for some real quotes that actually describe actual history: "The agreement of Vienna of 1606 between Matthias on behalf of his imperial brother and Bocskay [...] Peace with the Turks, but not with the rebellious christian anti-Habsburg forces east of the Tisza, was now established for half a century. Inasmuch as the Transylvanian rulers could challenge succesfully imperial control of Hungary this meant that the imperial position in Hungary remained as precarious as ever. Yet this also meant that the one factor in the eastern power game that could have decisively obstructed Habsburg power in Central and Eastern European affairs in the coming decades, namely Ottoman power, remained neutral during the Thirty Years' War. The importance of this attitude, confirmed in a treaty in 1627 to be valid for 21 years, can hardly be overrated." Robert. A. Kann, 'A history of the Habsburg Empire 1526-1918', p42-43
So yeah, in the game they can be on any side for all I care, but people should get their story straight if they are trying to argue history...
- 1
The 80years war was linked to the 30years war (shown by the fact that the shared the peace treaty), so Spain and Portugal were involved very much.
Poland was busy with Muscovy, so both had little interest in an other war. France may have joined late, but was part of it all the time: without their finacial aid Denmark and Sweden would not have attacked. They also continued fighting the other Habsburgers in Spain until 1659. Ottomans might not have joined because they were busy on other fronts, but always were a threat. They were basically allied to France for fighting the Habsburgs before.
For me it seems realistic that a GB, a Ottoman, a PLC or a Muscovy joins a war to fight the Emperor when he is a threat.
Last edited:
Big suprise that the protestants are to whimpy to start it in your game. They are 9/10 times. Mostly because sweden basically never ever reforms (while IRL being one of the first countries to do so, long before england who always jumps on the reformation almost immediatly).
In many games it seems that large allies stack one side and the war will never begin, due to the fact that one side is way too powerful than the other.
After looking closer at it, I'm actually surprised that Protestants don't start the war. May be it's because they chose the leader very badly? England is weak in my game, I've beaten them several times and there is truce between us now.
It's 1614. The leagues were created in 1595.
Catholic league big shots: Amsterdam (me, leader), Ottomans, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Venice, Hungary, Bohemia, Papal State.
Protestant league big shots: England (leader), France, Denmark, Russia, Poland, Norway.
I think Protestant should attack, they are not that weak (apart from England).
I just noticed that one of my colonial nations (I have 7 total) is in top 10 by military size
It's 1614. The leagues were created in 1595.
Catholic league big shots: Amsterdam (me, leader), Ottomans, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Venice, Hungary, Bohemia, Papal State.
Protestant league big shots: England (leader), France, Denmark, Russia, Poland, Norway.
I think Protestant should attack, they are not that weak (apart from England).
I just noticed that one of my colonial nations (I have 7 total) is in top 10 by military size
Colonies view:
(light blue is Amsterdam, red in North America is England, green California and South Africa is Portugal, yellow West Africa is Spain)
France has just a very few colonies, Denmark or Ottomans have none.
(light blue is Amsterdam, red in North America is England, green California and South Africa is Portugal, yellow West Africa is Spain)
France has just a very few colonies, Denmark or Ottomans have none.
There's nothing wrong with the Ottomans attacking the emperor in a separate war while the Thirty Years' War is raging, that's perfectly reasonable. But having the Ottomans join a diplomatic alliance with commitments to defend the whole of the league is absurd from the perspective of realism. The Ottomans of that time period did not participate in European diplomacy in a way that would allow that. They didn't imagine their state as being part of an international system of diplomacy such that permanent foreign commitments (especially to non-Muslims) could exist, certainly not until the eighteenth century. The closest thing to that which happened historically was the brief Franco-Ottoman "Alliance" of 1536 and that didn't result in any long-term commitments aside from the economic capitulations, merely short-term attempts at cooperation against an enemy which both the French and Ottomans were already at war with. I can't imagine how the Ottomans would have engaged in an alliance as it's presented in the game, established during peacetime whereby they'd be obliged to come to the defense of any fellow league member.
- 4
That's why as leader of one side you gotta attack the other side ASAP before all your rivals join them.
Thanks, thanks, THANKS so much for this post. Posts like "the Ottomans participated" or "the Ottomans were pratically in the League" make me physically sick.
I have nothing against non-HRE Protestants, Reformed, Orthodox or Coptic Christs entering the conflict or even leading it, but please, no Sunni, Shia or Hindu. There is NO historical - I underline - NO historical argument for this. You can talk about gameplay, but please don't invent arguments which don't exist to feed it.
- 2
After looking closer at it, I'm actually surprised that Protestants don't start the war. May be it's because they chose the leader very badly? England is weak in my game, I've beaten them several times and there is truce between us now.
It's 1614. The leagues were created in 1595.
Catholic league big shots: Amsterdam (me, leader), Ottomans, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Venice, Hungary, Bohemia, Papal State.
Protestant league big shots: England (leader), France, Denmark, Russia, Poland, Norway.
I think Protestant should attack, they are not that weak (apart from England).
I just noticed that one of my colonial nations (I have 7 total) is in top 10 by military size
You're surprised they don't start the league war? Would you in their place?
It's quite obvious that the Protestants want no part of this league war. At a glance without any actual math I'd just guess that your alliance is at least 20% stronger than the Protestants, and that's without taking into account colonial armies, which the AI counts as normal allied armies AFAIK for deciding wether to attack.
Just look at it, there are 2 first rate military powers in the catholics (you, ottos) vs only 1 first rate power in the protestants (france).
Then you have an important gap in army numbers to the second rate powers which start with Russia, and again here you have an edge with (Spain, Pope) vs only 1 protestant (Russia)
Further down is a weakened Poland and an England that is so rekt it doesn't even show up in the ledger...
Protestants declaring would be suicidal.