Ottomans is in the Catholic League

[ringhloth]

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.

So the Ottomans shouldn't be able to form alliances?

 

[Mirehn]

Yep, Ottos were (tacitly) in the war.

But my Thirty Years War is going to be epic.

Protestants: PLC (my fault we're Protestant), Sweden, Bohemia (both 200 relation allies), Saxony, Brandenburg, Hansa, and Scotland and some HRE minors.

Versus

Catholics: England, France, Austria, Hungary, Spain, and some HRE minors.

First time I've ever made the Thirty Years War look like it's going to be epic. Mostly since I'd say our collective manpower and economies are equal. Ottomans hate Hungary/Austria more than they hate me, so the entire war may hinge on what side Ottomons choose (Muscovy is useless since I own Moscow, Vladimir, Ryazan and all the other good Russian provinces).

 

[Chamboozer]

So the Ottomans shouldn't be able to form alliances?

Yes and no. The problem is that there's no nuance in the game with regard to what an alliance is. Before the eighteenth century the Ottomans never made a single alliance if we define it as EUIV does: a mutual agreement between two equal parties to defend one another in the case of an attack by a third party. However there were many instances of what the game defines as diplo-vassalization, which in the game requires an intermediary stage of alliance.

The Ottoman ruler was the padishah of the universe. How could such a ruler engage in diplomacy on an equal level with anyone else?

 

[ShoGuL]

Yes and no. The problem is that there's no nuance in the game with regard to what an alliance is. Before the eighteenth century the Ottomans never made a single alliance if we define it as EUIV does: a mutual agreement between two equal parties to defend one another in the case of an attack by a third party. However there were many instances of what the game defines as diplo-vassalization, which in the game requires an intermediary stage of alliance.

The Ottoman ruler was the padishah of the universe. How could such a ruler engage in diplomacy on an equal level with anyone else?

Or TL;DR -- Ottomans Stronk!

 

[Chamboozer]

Or TL;DR -- Ottomans Stronk!

From their own point of view, yes. Until they got beaten up by the Holy League after 1683 they didn't see any reason to think otherwise.

They were rather like China in this regard: after 1517 or so they developed the perspective that their ruler wielded a universal sovereignty over the earth and all other rulers were to offer him obeisance in some form or another.

 

[Soulburger]

I don't have too much of a problem with countries taking an unusual turn in the League War but had one today where France, Defender of the Catholic Faith, signed up for the Protestant side.

 

[Monkbel]

That's why as leader of one side you gotta attack the other side ASAP before all your rivals join them.

I can't attack being a leader of Catholic league. Only Protestant league can attack. (I read it somewhere - it's not clear in the game UI).

 

[Monkbel]

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.

Makes sense.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

I'm not sure but I get the feeling theres some kind of order to it through religion and European lands rather than total lands, would be silly if a sunni nation could be leader of a christian religious league

Why? If a Sunni nation was heavily involved in European politics it would have a diplomatic interest in any major European conflict.

The religious strife of the Holy Roman Empire was 90% politics and 10% theology, and the existence of France as a Protestant ally, the regular backstabbing, and cynical conversions by low HRE princes shows that.

 

[Kapitalisti]

Realpolitik my boy. And even funnier is how I've seen the Pope join the Protestant League.

 

[pedrito_elcabra]

Realpolitik my boy. And even funnier is how I've seen the Pope join the Protestant League.

Funny - must be a bug though. No amount of realpolitik justifies this.

 

[Chamboozer]

Why? If a Sunni nation was heavily involved in European politics it would have a diplomatic interest in any major European conflict.

Diplomatic interest yes, but this is hugely different from actually treating with the European states as if they were part of the same diplomatic system.

Remember - European states and dynasties had centuries of history treating with one another because of their deeply intertwined aristocracies and, at the start of the period, common religious and political traditions. Diplomatic interaction had a long tradition and was highly formalized. A state like the Ottoman Empire couldn't just jump into the middle of that out of nowhere, its integration into European diplomacy took centuries and wasn't really complete until 1856.

 

[damifoe]

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.

The diplomatic relations of that time are more complicated. Its not like in the game where you have just aliance or nothing. Now we see 30years war and 80years war as single events, when in fact it was one big conflict: The fight against the habsburger dominance over europe. Netherlands and France have not been allied, but fought together for the same reason.
About the Ottomans: the French never really formed an offical alliance. But they always put the pressure on Habsburg together. Historically the war accured in a period where the Ottomans were not involved in europe, but given the alternate history setup of the game, they could have been. Without them there would not have been protestantism in the first place: Charles V. would have won. By the way: in 1547 the Pope (!) was close to forming an alliance with the Ottomans against Habsburg.

 

[Paul31264]

This is kind of unrelated to OP's questions, but how often does it actually happen that the League War never fires? In my game, lots of countries joined sides, and at some point, I simply got the popup "Catholic Empire happened to us", and suddenly, the leagues were gone and all Protestant Electors were removed. I assume the Catholic side wins by default if the Protestant side never challenges them?

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Why? If a Sunni nation was heavily involved in European politics it would have a diplomatic interest in any major European conflict.

The religious strife of the Holy Roman Empire was 90% politics and 10% theology, and the existence of France as a Protestant ally, the regular backstabbing, and cynical conversions by low HRE princes shows that.

Diplomatic interest yes, but this is hugely different from actually treating with the European states as if they were part of the same diplomatic system.

Remember - European states and dynasties had centuries of history treating with one another because of their deeply intertwined aristocracies and, at the start of the period, common religious and political traditions. Diplomatic interaction had a long tradition and was highly formalized. A state like the Ottoman Empire couldn't just jump into the middle of that out of nowhere, its integration into European diplomacy took centuries and wasn't really complete until 1856.

Leading on from what Chamboozer said, I can't see the European nations ever trusting the Ottomans with the task of being in charge of what is on the face of it a religious war between the Catholic and Protestant powers, no matter what the true intentions and politics of the war are under the surface. While it was much more about politics I think the leaders need to be a strong Catholic nation and a strong Protestant/Reformed nation and you could give a catagory system to how the war worked based off objectives, some of which, as the most likely to lead actually do want to avoid religious persecution from the other side. While it makes sense that nations like Russia and the Ottomans could take key roles in the conflict, giving them leadership would undermine the process and likely damage interests of both sides.

 

[damifoe]

The game's protestant league is not the historical protestant league. It's not an alliance, it's the historical coalition against the Habsburger dominance.

 

[Petrucci]

I have few question about league wars coz Iit's my first time to deal with it and I am running WC attempt as Castile so I would hate to fuck up something.
Firstl if I join on catholic side , and protestants don't declare on war, will I still get those bonuses ,discipline and army tradition?
Second, If I join league will that improve my relations with electors who are catholic? Coz ones voting for Austria got +200 relations for voting for them ,because Austria is being religious leader. So I guess +50 for being in same league would be awesome.
Third, if I am the strongest nation in catholic league (which I am) will I become their leader when I join or that place is reserved for emperor?
Forth when religious league war is over will emperor get some IA?

 

[Marco Dandolo]

Oh my. Anyone please show me the Ottoman signature under the Peace Treaty of Westphalia. Please.

 

[melkor88]

Pretty funny to see that Ottomans (double-checked, still Sunni) are a member of the Catholic League. Known bug or by design?

Also, why can England, non-member of HRE, lead Protestant League?

Anyone in Europe can join the 30 Years war. Also historically the Ottomans did join the war. But the sides people join are mainly chosen by going against rivals, joining allies etc.

 

[Monkbel]

This is kind of unrelated to OP's questions, but how often does it actually happen that the League War never fires? In my game, lots of countries joined sides, and at some point, I simply got the popup "Catholic Empire happened to us", and suddenly, the leagues were gone and all Protestant Electors were removed. I assume the Catholic side wins by default if the Protestant side never challenges them?

Yes, if Protestants don't attack, Catholic side wins.
But I don't know when. In my game, leagues were formed in 1595, and by 1630 "Catholic Empire" still didn't happen..