Sigismund of Luxembourg, Albrecht of Hapsburg, Ladislaus Postumus & their succession

[Twoflower]

This thread, as can be told from its title, is supposed to serve for discussing and improving setup, events and other stuff dealing with the countries held by Sigismund of Luxembourg, Albrecht of Hapsburg and Ladislaus Postumus, i.e. the fate of Hungary, Austria and Bohemia in the first half of the 15th century up to 1457 when separate monarchies were established in each country again. I'd like this to be the first in a series of threads that attempt to guide the three countries in a way that will ensure the formation of a solid Hapsburg Empire in 1526. For the period between 1419 and 1457, the main things that need to be considered are:

• the Hussite Wars. The conflict within Bohemia itself is now modeled in (I think) quite a satisfactory way, though a few things still need to be done. What is not working satisfactorily is the involvement of other countries and the effects on them:
  1. Hungary should be commiting quite a bit less to the conflict. I'm not sure how this can be achieved.
  2. The massive impact that Hussite teachings had in Upper Hungary (i.e. Slovakia) is deserving of an event.
• the transition of the Imperial dignity from Sigismund to Albrecht needs to be made more likely, since with the new election rules in one of the recent betas, Austria getting elected is much more the exception rather than the rule
• the Ottomans had started an invasion of Hungary in 1418, and South Hungary and parts of Croatia were under Ottoman occupation in 1419. The situation was in fact so severe that Sigismund called the Teutonic Order into the country in 1429 and gave them lands in the Banat. In fact, it might be a good idea to implement this war, since this would - besides being historical - both prevent Hungary from engaging too much in Bohemia and prevent the Ottomans from starting wars that do them more harm than good (like attacks on fellow muslim countries that they inherit a few years later)
• the struggle for the Hungarian throne after the death of Albrecht could be redone a bit now that more tags are available. Jan Jiskra's occupation of Slovakia that lasted almost two decades could be represented by an independent Slovakia, we could have an independent Cilli that supports the Hapsburgs - and at the same time tries to play its own hand in the struggle for Hungary and Austria - and Croatia, which was controlled by Laszló Garai, another supporter of Ladislaus and the Hapsburgs, could have a brief spell of independence, too.
• the ascension of Albrecht in Bohemia was far from uncontested; a large faction of Bohemian Utraquists in fact favoured Wladislaw III of Poland and his brother Casimir, and Bohemia was basically in a state of civil war
• the struggle for rule of Austria after Albrecht's death, that currently isn't represented at all, could use a few events
• it might be nice to give Hungary a few alternatives to Matthias Corvinus in 1457
• most importantly, it needs to be ensured that the three countries perform roughly historically and neither disintegrate nor overexpand in most games

 

[unmerged(25696)]

the Hussite Wars. The conflict within Bohemia itself is now modeled in (I think) quite a satisfactory way, though a few things still need to be done. What is not working satisfactorily is the involvement of other countries and the effects on them:
1. Hungary should be commiting quite a bit less to the conflict. I'm not sure how this can be achieved.
2. The massive impact that Hussite teachings had in Upper Hungary (i.e. Slovakia) is deserving of an event.

1. maybe decreasing the length of the CB against SIL

the transition of the Imperial dignity from Sigismund to Albrecht needs to be made more likely, since with the new election rules in one of the recent betas, Austria getting elected is much more the exception rather than the rule

I'd suggest an event just before the transition, giving some relations boost. Maybe giving two votes to each of Tyrol, Styria & Austria, and ensuring high relations within all branches of the Habsburg House (not fully historical tough). Or give maybe three votes to Austria, since later Tyrol & Styria will be inherited.

the Ottomans had started an invasion of Hungary in 1418, and South Hungary and parts of Croatia were under Ottoman occupation in 1419. The situation was in fact so severe that Sigismund called the Teutonic Order into the country in 1429 and gave them lands in the Banat. In fact, it might be a good idea to implement this war, since this would - besides being historical - both prevent Hungary from engaging too much in Bohemia and prevent the Ottomans from starting wars that do them more harm than good (like attacks on fellow muslim countries that they inherit a few years later)

The Teutonic Order are already too often crushed by Poland/Lithuania and/or Denmark/Sweden, I think this might be too much for them.

the struggle for the Hungarian throne after the death of Albrecht could be redone a bit now that more tags are available. Jan Jiskra's occupation of Slovakia that lasted almost two decades could be represented by an independent Slovakia, we could have an independent Cilli that supports the Hapsburgs - and at the same time tries to play its own hand in the struggle for Hungary and Austria - and Croatia, which was controlled by Laszló Garai, another supporter of Ladislaus and the Hapsburgs, could have a brief spell of independence, too.

Sounds good.

the ascension of Albrecht in Bohemia was far from uncontested; a large faction of Bohemian Utraquists in fact favoured Wladislaw III of Poland and his brother Casimir, and Bohemia was basically in a state of civil war

What do you suggest ? Another independent country, or a higher RR for some years ? An increased RR would have as consequence a weakening of Bohemia, which would prevent them from expanding wildly into the HRE, but the weakening should not be too severe to avoid Poland taking lands into Bohemia more often than not.

[*]the struggle for rule of Austria after Albrecht's death, that currently isn't represented at all, could use a few events

[*]it might be nice to give Hungary a few alternatives to Matthias Corvinus in 1457

There weren't many alternatives to him, except the Habsburgs (who kept the crown). do you think of someone in particular ?

most importantly, it needs to be ensured that the three countries perform roughly historically and neither disintegrate nor overexpand in most games.

I fully agree with you, but it should allow for some lee-way, to avoid the historically-bookish 'feeling'. Also, too many events with a choice increase the odds that the sequence won't trigger correctly : each additional choice in an event gives approximately 5% chances that the event won't fire correctly. A chain of 10 events with two choices each has only 56% chances of ending with the historical setting. So, the danger is both being too restrictive (by not allowing second choices in enough events) and being too permissive (allowing too many choices, increasing the odds that the AI will behave weirdly).

 

[unmerged(21523)]

Originally Posted by Lawkeeper
The Teutonic Order are already too often crushed by Poland/Lithuania and/or Denmark/Sweden, I think this might be too much for them.

I think the war he's talking about is the one between Hungary and the Ottomans. I think this a fine idea, we could even put a province or two in south Hungary under Ottoman occupation from the start. The TO was called in to fight the Ottomans.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

I think the war he's talking about is the one between Hungary and the Ottomans. I think this a fine idea, we could even put a province or two in south Hungary under Ottoman occupation from the start. The TO was called in to fight the Ottomans.

Oh, if that's so, it's fine. As long as the TO/LO aren't really called to war, it's fine and shouldn't hurt them.

 

[Twoflower]

I think the war he's talking about is the one between Hungary and the Ottomans. I think this a fine idea, we could even put a province or two in south Hungary under Ottoman occupation from the start. The TO was called in to fight the Ottomans.

Right, I was talking about a war between the Ottomans and Hungary. The mention of the Teutonic Order was just as a proof that this was a rather serious conflict and not one of the frequent border skirmishes between the Ottomans and Hungary (or Austria) that were to happen later. Of course, such a war should only be put in if it does more good than bad, i.e. if it keeps the Ottomans and Hungary busy in the first years and prevents them from doing dows that do not benefit them and if it does not lead to one of the two countries being crushed or brought down by war exhaustion (we is much more of a problem for the player than for the AI though).

 

[Twoflower]

1. maybe decreasing the length of the CB against SIL

I do want Hungary to be involved in the war, I just don't want them to attack with full force.

I'd suggest an event just before the transition, giving some relations boost. Maybe giving two votes to each of Tyrol, Styria & Austria, and ensuring high relations within all branches of the Habsburg House (not fully historical tough). Or give maybe three votes to Austria, since later Tyrol & Styria will be inherited.

I was thinking more of the relations boost.

The Teutonic Order are already too often crushed by Poland/Lithuania and/or Denmark/Sweden, I think this might be too much for them.

Yes, yes, I do not expect the TO to be able to handle a war against the OE (leaving aside the fact that they don't exactly border Ottoman territory ).

What do you suggest ? Another independent country, or a higher RR for some years ? An increased RR would have as consequence a weakening of Bohemia, which would prevent them from expanding wildly into the HRE, but the weakening should not be too severe to avoid Poland taking lands into Bohemia more often than not.

I'm not quite sure, perhaps a war between Albrecht's countries (Austria, Hungary and the part of Bohemia that supported him) and Poland, perhaps just a bit of RR....

There weren't many alternatives to him, except the Habsburgs (who kept the crown). do you think of someone in particular ?

Well, Friedrich III, some Jagello guy and Laszlo Garai might be worth consideration if we can work out how these choices could make sense for Hungary and be a somewhat different path to walk for it.

I fully agree with you, but it should allow for some lee-way, to avoid the historically-bookish 'feeling'. Also, too many events with a choice increase the odds that the sequence won't trigger correctly : each additional choice in an event gives approximately 5% chances that the event won't fire correctly. A chain of 10 events with two choices each has only 56% chances of ending with the historical setting. So, the danger is both being too restrictive (by not allowing second choices in enough events) and being too permissive (allowing too many choices, increasing the odds that the AI will behave weirdly).

Indeed. In an ideal world, we'd have stuff spiced up by several different choices that will all lead to a slightly different game but won't result in much divergence in the bigger picture at high probability.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

Right, I was talking about a war between the Ottomans and Hungary. The mention of the Teutonic Order was just as a proof that this was a rather serious conflict and not one of the frequent border skirmishes between the Ottomans and Hungary (or Austria) that were to happen later. Of course, such a war should only be put in if it does more good than bad, i.e. if it keeps the Ottomans and Hungary busy in the first years and prevents them from doing dows that do not benefit them and if it does not lead to one of the two countries being crushed or brought down by war exhaustion (we is much more of a problem for the player than for the AI though).

I'm more afraid about Poland taking advantage of Hungary than the OE being weakened, since the OE mainly faces one or two provinces minors. But this might be tried, to see if it works as intended.

But don't forget Hungary is already at war with Venice since the beginning of the GC, and Venice already has a +20 WS from battles. If the OE is given control of one or two hungarian provinces, this might be too much for Hungary to manage, and they might lose at least one province to Venice if disturbed by the Turks, and possibly more to the Turks.

Besides, wouldn't the OE leave the turkish minors in peace if given an RM (or eventually a vassalization and/or alliance) ? The OE have good leaders with Hamza Bey and Murad II, they might easily storm the leaderless and worse-DP-sliders Hungarians (tough Hungary has more troops).

 

[unmerged(25696)]

I do want Hungary to be involved in the war, I just don't want them to attack with full force.

Ah, all right. I'm not sure of this, but does Hungary get any cores on bohemian provinces ? If yes, then a first step might be to remove those cores.
If not, another solution is to weaken Hungary (some revolts ?). Or to keep Hungary out of the war itself, but have desertions and loss of money, added to the Romanists.
I'm not sure, but this line in the ai_Readme, in the 'conquer' part :

	# low values keep wars mainly defensive, high values make you extremely aggressive
	base = (0.0 - 100.0) #warmongers need this high

If I understand it well, putting a lower number than the current 0.5 in the bpai_hun_time1490 should make Hungary keep its troops in its own territory.
Similarly, a low 'distance' factor and a high 'owner' factor also improve the defensive optic of a country (low distance means keeping the troops close to home, while owner means letting sieges down to restore control of its own provinces).

I was thinking more of the relations boost.

Perhaps only targeted towards the Electors having two votes ? Or towards all of them ?

I'm not quite sure, perhaps a war between Albrecht's countries (Austria, Hungary and the part of Bohemia that supported him) and Poland, perhaps just a bit of RR....

At least, this would keep them busy fighting each other rather than expanding into the HRE. But it should be sure that they won't take too many allies in their war.

Well, Friedrich III, some Jagello guy and Laszlo Garai might be worth consideration if we can work out how these choices could make sense for Hungary and be a somewhat different path to walk for it.

Yes, Friedrich III was the 'legal' heir of Ladislas Posthumus, but the Diet didn't respect this by electing Mathias Corvin.
But I can't find the candidature of a Jagello at this date. Tough, since they often were interested (and will be again IIRC), this might be logic.
I wouldn't let Laszlo Garai in. After all, we already have Corvin as 'national candidate', as opposed to the Habsburg candidate and the polish candidate.

Indeed. In an ideal world, we'd have stuff spiced up by several different choices that will all lead to a slightly different game but won't result in much divergence in the bigger picture at high probability.

What is important is to remember that it's the matrimonial politics of Friedrich and Maximilian that bore the fruits of the inheritance of both Bohemia and Hungary. If paths differ, they shouldn't be inherited a few decades later (tough they might be a bit earlier too, on the opposite end of the possibilities).

 

[Toio]

Right, I was talking about a war between the Ottomans and Hungary. The mention of the Teutonic Order was just as a proof that this was a rather serious conflict and not one of the frequent border skirmishes between the Ottomans and Hungary (or Austria) that were to happen later. Of course, such a war should only be put in if it does more good than bad, i.e. if it keeps the Ottomans and Hungary busy in the first years and prevents them from doing dows that do not benefit them and if it does not lead to one of the two countries being crushed or brought down by war exhaustion (we is much more of a problem for the player than for the AI though).

Hungary and OE were fighting each other many times in earlier versions of AGCEEP. I have noticed it has been lacking since 1.32.
I have added in my hungary AI file - OE on their combat list (CL) and in the OE AI file I have added Hungary in the CL , also added Balkans in OEs area of expansion list.

Last test (current) 1461 is the year and OE and HUN have had 3 major wars. Hungary still own serbia but have recently lost Banat and Wallachia.

You also need to think about removing on HUN lists anything that resembles an agressive act on VEN. Basically they never fought each other after 1430. and were at one stage in an alliance with Poland against the OE.

 

[Twoflower]

Since the initial DPs are of immense importance for balance, logic and consistency of events in order to know where they are going to take the county DP-wise, the first thing I'd like to discuss and rework in this thread are the initial DPs for Austria and Hungary (such a review was already done for Bohemia).
These are merely my suggestions based on my knowledge, please do dispute them and correct me if you know better

Austria

- Austria currently has aristocracy 8, which is the standard value for HRE countries. Traditionally, the burghers in general and particularly the citizens of Vienna and Linz were quite important allies of the Dukes against the higher nobility. I'd thus suggest lowering aristocracy to 7
- centralisation is 3. Central authority had been virtually nonexistant between 1404 and 1410, i.e. in the first years after the premature death of Albrecht IV when several members of the Hapsburg and Luxembourg dynasties were struggling for influence in Austria and over the minor Albrecht V and when nobody was stopping the constant feuds among Austria's nobility. This changed somewhat when the Austrian estates took charge and declared Albrecht adult (thus removing him from the influence of tutors) in 1411. By 1419, Albrecht had with the support of Emperor Sigismund and the Austrian estates pretty much consolidated his rule and stabilized the country; nonetheless I fail to see any justification for a higher centralization than 2, which we have defined as the "normal" value for European monarchies in 1419. Therefore centralisation should be lowered to 2
- innovativeness is 4, i.e. matching the standard value for HRE states which seems ok to me. An event for the expulsion of Jews from Vienna in 1421 should decrease innovativeness.
- mercantilism is 8, matching the current standard value for HRE states. Should probably remain unchanged unless we lower the standard value (which would imo be a good thing to do, since 8 leaves few room for increases and there really wasn't that much effective regulation of trade in the 15th century, especially compared to the truly "mercantilistic" states of the 17th and 18th century)
- offensive 5, land 8 and quality 5 match the standard values for HRE countries. Since afaik there was nothing special about Austria's feudal levy, these settings should not differ from the standard values.
- serfdom is 8, one lower than the standard value for HRE countries and one higher than the new value I have submitted for Bohemia (where serfdom as an institution did not exist in 1419). Considering that serfdom did exist in Austria, but had since the 13th century declined in importance and harshness, so that the ties between lords and serfs were somewhat less strict than e.g. in Swabia, Franconia and Bavaria, this seems quite right.
- this would give the following initial DPs for Austria: aristocracy 7, centralisation 2, innovativeness 4, mercantilism 8, offensive 5, land 8, quality 5, serfdom 8

Hungary

- aristocracy is 8. Hungary's big magnates were very influential, owned a large share of the land and were quite a hindrance to royal authority. On the other hand, the non-noble classes had few influence and were usually not represented at all in Hungarian diets. Since nonetheless there should be potential for an increase after 1490, the value should be 9
- centralization is 1. Under the Angevin Kings, Hungary was a kingdom with relatively strong royal authority, however Emperor Sigismund was permanently absent from the country and unable to impose his will, thus he could only rule with the consent of the Hungarian Diet which thereby gained (back) its importance as a limit to his authority. Also, the power of the large magnates grew constantly. Centralisation 1 can thus be justified.
- innovativeness is 4. Hungary's university in Pécs, founded in 1367, was one of the oldest in Europe (though already pretty much in decline by 1419); arts and sciences had generally prospered during the reign of Louis the Great. Also, most groups among the pretty heterogeneous population of Hungary - Hungarians, Slovaks, Germans, Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Slovenes, Romanians, Szekelers, Ruthenians and Jews - enjoyed an equal status and could gain influence without any discrimination - which is demonstrated by the fact that Janos Hunyadi and Ulrich of Cilli, the two most powerful men in Hungary in the 1440s, were Romanian and Slovene. This would justify innovativeness 4
- mercantilism is 8. The most important positive aspect of Emperor Sigismund's rule was his promotion of international trade, achieved by abolishing most internal duties, lowering tariffs on foreign goods and standardising weights and measures throughout the country, therefore Hungary should definitely have a relatively low mercantilism value. With the standard initial value at 8, Hungary's setting should not be much lower, but still its mercantilism should not be higher than 6.
- offensive is 4. I reckon that this is because Hungarian armies had waged war in Italy and against Italian states during most of the 14th and early 15th century (in the struggle for the Kingdom of Naples and the permanent conflicts with Venice) and had to a certain extent adapted Italian tactics and because quite much emphasis was put on defending the southern border. If these were the reasons, 4 is ok
- land is 6. I'm not sure, but setting it to 7 and thus between the 8 of e.g. Poland, Bohemia and Austria and the 6 of e.g. the Ottomans and Milan seems better.
- quality is 4. Hungarian armies were made up mostly by mercenaries from Germany, Bohemia and Italy and the banderium, i.e. (roughly) the personal guard of the nobility, and definitely not a peasant army. Since the army was hence in fact relatively small, but usually in quite a decent shape, I'd say that quality should be a bit above average, i.e. at 6.
- serfdom is 10. The institution of serfdom was firmly established in Hungary, however Louis the Great had standardised the obligations of serfs (thus prohibiting the lords to treat them completely arbitrarily) and guaranteed the right of free migration, thus setting serfdom to the maximal value seems wrong; there needs to be a possiblity for an increase after 1490. For this reason, serfdom should be lowered to 9
-in summary, Hungary's initial DPs would be: aristocracy 9, centralisation 1, innovativeness 5, mercantilism 6, offensive 4, land 7, quality 6, serfdom 9

 

[Toio]

Austria

-
- this would give the following initial DPs for Austria: aristocracy 7, centralisation 2, innovativeness 4, mercantilism 8, offensive 5, land 8, quality 5, serfdom 8


Hungary


-in summary, Hungary's initial DPs would be: aristocracy 9, centralisation 1, innovativeness 5, mercantilism 6, offensive 4, land 7, quality 6, serfdom 9

On Austria, Offensive, land and quality seems to high, the Austrians lost a major war to Venice in 1508 and another in 1613, Venice as most Italian states in Eu2 basically start lower than what you propose. I see austria as off=4, land=6, qual=4.
If you selected your numbers based on Austrians northern, western and eastern neighbors well that's another matter .
I also presume you want Austria to go after HRE states as well as eventually Hungary.?

On Hungary, quality 6 worries me in the sense that they have such a huge army at the start and this could cause a major inbalance initially in the Balkans. If you want to retain that quality, they should only have a starting army of 5000.
I prefer quality to be at 4. The hungarian problems were that they could not keep their mercenaries in pay and thus had a lot of "desertions".

 

[Twoflower]

On Austria, Offensive, land and quality seems to high, the Austrians lost a major war to Venice in 1508 and another in 1613, Venice as most Italian states in Eu2 basically start lower than what you propose. I see austria as off=4, land=6, qual=4.
If you selected your numbers based on Austrians northern, western and eastern neighbors well that's another matter .

1508 and 1613 are not 1419, and what I was talking about were the DPs inn 1419. I was not proposing any change on these three sliders because I don't see any base to differ from the HRE standard, which Austria is more comparable to than to Venice. If you think that the general standard DPs for HRE states are not right (which I think I agree with to some extent), well that's another matter.
Also, winning wars doesn't tell anything about the DPs, there are many more factors, and thus an argument with "Venice won that war" when discussing DP settings is simply irrelevant, sorry.

I also presume you want Austria to go after HRE states as well as eventually Hungary.?

Certainly not, this is what I'd like to prevent (and DPs won't affect that much).

On Hungary, quality 6 worries me in the sense that they have such a huge army at the start and this could cause a major inbalance initially in the Balkans. If you want to retain that quality, they should only have a starting army of 5000.

Yes, their army should be smaller, no, 5000 would hardly be enough. Comparing the small, but usually well equipped (to a magnate, his banderium was the very base of his power, hence those who could afford one had quite a big interest in having a useful banderium) Hungarian banderia to the usual German feudal levy, I definitely think they should have a higher quality than the German states. Remember that at the time when it consisted just of mercenaries and the banderia, the Hungarian army was made up mainly by professional, well-trained soldiers. Quality should be decreased by an event for the introduction of the Militia Portalis - mounted archers from the peasant class that had to be raised and equiped by the nobles between 1432 and 1435.

I prefer quality to be at 4. The hungarian problems were that they could not keep their mercenaries in pay and thus had a lot of "desertions".

I.e. their army was too expensive, which is reflected by the fact that high quality makes recruiting and supplying troops more expensive However I think you are again thinking of phenomenons that happened much, much later

 

[Toio]

1508 and 1613 are not 1419, and what I was talking about were the DPs inn 1419. I was not proposing any change on these three sliders because I don't see any base to differ from the HRE standard, which Austria is more comparable to than to Venice. If you think that the general standard DPs for HRE states are not right (which I think I agree with to some extent), well that's another matter.
Also, winning wars doesn't tell anything about the DPs, there are many more factors, and thus an argument with "Venice won that war" when discussing DP settings is simply irrelevant, sorry.

Since Austria really only fought Venice of the Italian states, I was trying to establish the justification in levels between austria and its neighbours.

Certainly not, this is what I'd like to prevent (and DPs won't affect that much).

What your aim/targets for Austria and Hungary?
Note: If you want the OE to advance to Vienna then you cannot have a very strong HUN.

Yes, their army should be smaller, no, 5000 would hardly be enough. Comparing the small, but usually well equipped (to a magnate, his banderium was the very base of his power, hence those who could afford one had quite a big interest in having a useful banderium) Hungarian banderia to the usual German feudal levy, I definitely think they should have a higher quality than the German states. Remember that at the time when it consisted just of mercenaries and the banderia, the Hungarian army was made up mainly by professional, well-trained soldiers. Quality should be decreased by an event for the introduction of the Militia Portalis - mounted archers from the peasant class that had to be raised and equiped by the nobles between 1432 and 1435.

I like this then. Where do you want HUN to be by 1500, I presume in a major decline.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

- this would give the following initial DPs for Austria: aristocracy 7, centralisation 2, innovativeness 4, mercantilism 8, offensive 5, land 8, quality 5, serfdom 8

-in summary, Hungary's initial DPs would be: aristocracy 9, centralisation 1, innovativeness 5, mercantilism 6, offensive 4, land 7, quality 6, serfdom 9

Humm, Hungary should definitely have a world-class army during much of the 15th century. First off I don't see any major reason to make Hungary any less land-oriented then Poland, as for quality I suppose 6 might be enough, and I think offensive should maybe be 5... How large is the morale penalty for near-max serfdom again?

Looking at Austria I think that offensive 5, land 8, quality 5 as HRE-standard might be too high, the HRE wasn't known for it's great military prowress during the later middle ages. Quality should doubtlessly be below average, and offensive too. Land is good for Austria. BTW, I think I remember Max of Austria implementing some military reforms, so a quality-raising event during his reign might be a good idea to Austria armies a slight "edge".

 

[unmerged(17991)]

Succession of Sigismund of Luxemburg in Bohemia

History:

Sigismund died in Znaim while leaving (fleeing from) Bohemia after certain leaders of the Utraquists had started to contest the Compromise of Iglau and talk about an open rebellion. In other words, Sigismund was leaving/fleeing because central government had collapsed, and Bohemia was cantoned into fiefs controlled by local warlords (nobles or cities) and their federations.

Some of these Utraquist leaders then re-formed the so-called 'Polish faction' that had earlier worked for Korybut and then Casimir already during the Hussite wars. The other leaders formed the so-called 'Hapsburg faction' that, of course, included the Catholics, but also many Utraquists. The Hapsburg faction prevailed, and Albrecht was elected on 27 December 1437.

On 29 May 1438, the Polish faction decided to elect Prince Casimir Jagello, and the Prince accepted the crown. In late summer and early autumn 1438, Casimir and his supporters were soundly defeated both in Bohemia (certain Utraquist cities) and in Silesia (Polish expeditionary force). Furthermore, Polish diplomacy then focused on getting Casimir to the throne in Lithuania, which actualy happened in 1440.

Consequently, the Utraquists, led by Hynek Ptacek, accepted Albrecht, and the short civil war ended. Albrecht, however, was not able to restore central authority in Bohemia because he left the country and died less than 1 year later in October 1439.

Game:

Romanist Bohemia - no problem, Albrecht is accepted and uncontested.

Hussites - no problem, Albrecht is not their monarch.

Bohemia - no problem if Sigismund had not been crowned (i.e. if the Hussites turned into Bohemia only because they had conquered the Romanists, not because they had accepted Sigismund). Otherwise, we have the choice between a civil war and a high RR, as Twoflower suggested. For the time being, I suggest going with high RR. The main issues with the simulation of a civil war would be: (i) it was rather short and limited (by Hussite standards); and (ii) the 'Polish' side did not have real strongholds, just individual castles and cities that would not be easy to represent with a province.

By high RR, I mean a RR that would reduce income to the amount needed to maintain a 15k army and prevent raising new troops. The RR would last until Albrecht's death and affect all provinces except Moravia (where Albrecht had been ruling for many years, and that accepted him quite smoothly). He was also accepted rather smoothly in Silesia, but Silesia suffered from the Polish expedition - since we would not have this conflict in game, the 'neutralization' of Silesia through the RR would represent the fact that Albrecht had to use Silesian troops and money in Silesia to defend against the Poles.

Nevertheless, we can also try to include into the game the broader concept of rivalry between the Jagellonians and the Luxemburgs/Habsburgs over Hungary and Bohemia that existed already under Sigismund, and became apparent especially after the death of Albrecht.

Regarding Bohemia, this would include Korybut, Casimir, (Jiri z Podebrad), Vladislav and Ludvik, and end with Sigismund the Old (who should be the C-choice for Bohemia in 1526, but we will get to this later on), and their oponents, Sigismund of Luxemburg, Albrecht of Hapsburg, Ladislaus Posthumus, Fridrich, (Matthias Corvinus) and Ferdinand of Hapsburg.

This would require a lot of input from our Polish and Hungarian friends because Bohemian politics often depended on their choices: e.g. regardless of the defeat in 1438, Casimir would have had very good chances to get elected in 1440, but he preferred to become the Grand Duke of Lithuania. Nevertheless, this could offer an interesting possibility to see the Jagellonians rather than the Hapsburgs form a strong Central-European confederation. Which is also a caveat, because any new events in that direction increase the chance that the Hapsburg Empire would not form properly. You understand, however, that this does not really bother a Czech... [just kidding]

 

[Twoflower]

Humm, Hungary should definitely have a world-class army during much of the 15th century. First off I don't see any major reason to make Hungary any less land-oriented then Poland, as for quality I suppose 6 might be enough, and I think offensive should maybe be 5... How large is the morale penalty for near-max serfdom again?

Considering the number and strength of its foes, Hungary did quite well in its 15th century wars, however I'm not sure if Sigismund's forces should be considered a world-class army. Louis the Great's, Janos Hunyadi's and Mathias Corvinus' armies were very good, perhaps even "world-class", while Sigismund's army, which did not do particularly well neither against Venice nor against the Ottomans nor against Hussites was not really outstanding. Still, you're right in that the Hungarian army needs to have a decent morale and should be quite effective, and there especially the morale penalty caused by serfdom 9 needs to be compensated for in some way. Land could indeed be 8 just as well, although Hungary could be considered a bit more open to international trade, a bit more oriented towards the adjacent sea (did Poland even have a coastline in 1419?) and a bit more dependent on its rivers (or rather, its river, the Danube) than Poland, which would justify giving it a lower land value than Poland (though it might be best to give Poland 9 and Hungary 8). Offensive 5 might be good, too.

Looking at Austria I think that offensive 5, land 8, quality 5 as HRE-standard might be too high, the HRE wasn't known for it's great military prowress during the later middle ages. Quality should doubtlessly be below average, and offensive too. Land is good for Austria. BTW, I think I remember Max of Austria implementing some military reforms, so a quality-raising event during his reign might be a good idea to Austria armies a slight "edge".

Offensive and quality 4 as standard values for the HRE (the HRE countries neither had peasant armies nor did they have better fortresses and artillery than the Italians, so even lower values would be bad) seem right to me. Land 9 for Austria, and perhaps some other "continental" German countries, like Bavaria, Wirtemberg and Tyrol, would probably be good too.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Considering the number and strength of its foes, Hungary did quite well in its 15th century wars, however I'm not sure if Sigismund's forces should be considered a world-class army. Louis the Great's, Janos Hunyadi's and Mathias Corvinus' armies were very good, perhaps even "world-class", while Sigismund's army, which did not do particularly well neither against Venice nor against the Ottomans nor against Hussites was not really outstanding. Still, you're right in that the Hungarian army needs to have a decent morale and should be quite effective, and there especially the morale penalty caused by serfdom 9 needs to be compensated for in some way. Land could indeed be 8 just as well, although Hungary could be considered a bit more open to international trade, a bit more oriented towards the adjacent sea (did Poland even have a coastline in 1419?) and a bit more dependent on its rivers (or rather, its river, the Danube) than Poland, which would justify giving it a lower land value than Poland (though it might be best to give Poland 9 and Hungary 8). Offensive 5 might be good, too.

Yeah, the Hungarian army of 1419 should be good but not really world-class. But then there should be some event around 1441 or so representing the Black Army and all that, which should give a boost to DP-morale and give Hungary one of the better armies in all of Europe. Land 8 for HUN and 9 for POL (which indeed lacked a coastline in 1419 ) sounds good too.

Offensive and quality 4 as standard values for the HRE (the HRE countries neither had peasant armies nor did they have better fortresses and artillery than the Italians, so even lower values would be bad) seem right to me. Land 9 for Austria, and perhaps some other "continental" German countries, like Bavaria, Wirtemberg and Tyrol, would probably be good too.

Off/Qual 4 sounds reasonable. Land should of course vary depending on the region.

All in all, looks very good.

 

[Twoflower]

Alright, so it seems we can agree on the following 1419 DPs:
Austria: aristocracy 7, centralisation 2, innovativeness 4, mercantilism 8, offensive 4, land 8, quality 4, serfdom 8
Hungary: aristocracy 9, centralisation 1, innovativeness 5, mercantilism 6, offensive 6, land 8, quality 6, serfdom 9

Next step are events for the period between 1419 and 1439, i.e. the reigns of Sigismund and Albrecht. I'd propose the following (in addition to the Hussite Wars events, of course):

Expulsion of Jews from Austria

Austria
happens in 1421
- the Jews are expelled from Austria with the (completely made up) pretext of their cooperation with the Hussites. Doing this increases stability, lowers innovativeness by 1 and decreases the taxbase (because of the obvious economic importance of the Jews) and loansize (rather hard to get a loan from anybody else than the Jews); there should be a choice to leave them alone, which would lower stability a bit, and perhaps also a choice to grant them extended privilegues instead (not because it's really historical, but because it's nice to be able to be nice) which would hit stability quite a bit, cause an instant revolt, and increase innovativeness, base tax and loansize

Spread of Hussite doctrines to Upper Hungary

Hungary
happens between 1425 and 1435 (or so)
triggers: Hussites exist, Hungary owns at least one Slovak province (Presburg or Carpathia)
- this event is about the intrusion of Hussite preachers and the acceptance of their teachings in Upper Hungary, i.e. modern day Slovakia. Hungary would get the choice to either
A: persecute Hussites within its borders, which would give some (+5 or so) province revoltrisk in Presburg and Carpathia, reduce innovativeness by 1, reduce relations with the Hussites, improve relations with the Romanists and the Pope and trigger the Hussite "Slovak Hussites are persecuted" event
B: condemn, but tacitly tolerate Hussites in Upper Hungary, which would reduce stability, increase innovativeness by 1, improve relations with the Hussites and decrease relations with Romanists and Pope (and won't allow for the Hussite "Liberation" of Slovakia sequence to happen)

Slovak Hussites are persecuted

Hussite Bohemia
triggered by Hungary's Hussites in Slovakia event
if it is possible to add a trigger to a triggered event (so that the event is only triggered if the additional condition is fulfilled), which I'm not sure about, it might be good to trigger this on the "Taborites" flag, since the sequence is sort of questionable for Utraquist-dominated Hussites and I'd like it to be a little "goodie" for Taborite Hussites who do not have any other events and no possibility to turn back into Bohemia. If it is not possible to check for this, it would be ok for this event to happen for all Hussites and then just have an additional trigger for the second event.
- the Hussites are told that their faith has spread to Upper Hungary and that due the persecution of Hussites by the King of Hungary Hussite armies might be perceived as liberators by parts of the Slovak populace; as actual effect, this event would just give a CB on Hungary

Liberation of our Slovak brethren

Hussite Bohemia
can happen anytime after 1425 until 1450
triggers: "Slovak Hussites are persecuted" has happened, the "Taborites" flag is still set, the Hussites own Presburg and Carpathia
- the Hussites gain Slovak state culture and perhaps a few vps and the two Slovak provinces are turned reformed, which won't have any immediate effect, but will result in them being reformed after the Reformation. I'd give out the state culture rather than cores because still nobody (except themselves) would acknowledge a legitimate claim of Hussite Bohemia on Upper Hungary

The militia portalis

Hungary
happens between 1432 and 1435
- the Militia Portalis was a new part of the Hungarian army, made up by (usually mounted) archers recruited from the peasant class. The peasants serving in the militia portalis were exempt from the porta tax. Hungary should get a choice whether to introduce it or not; introducing the militia portalis would give a little stabhit, -1 quality (more troops can be recruited, however these are usually peasants and not really professionally trained soldiers) and -1 serfdom (as mentioned, this led to tax exemption for some peasants and opened a possibility to escape their burdens to some of them)

Renewed unrest

Bohemia
- this could either be a separate event that happens early in 1437 or (probably preferable) be integrated into the Coronation in Prague event. As Vaclav described, opposition towards Sigismund arose again soon after his coronation, and he basically had to flee from a country that was again fragmented into local fiefs controlled by local warlords and their federations. Thus, either in a separate event or as additional effects of the coronation event, Bohemia would get -2 centralization (back to 0 once more), a stabhit and some temporary revoltrisk.

Albrecht succeeds Sigismund

Austria
happens on December 8th 1437, i.e. one day before Sigismund's death and, more importantly, one day before the Imperial election
- this event would have several functions: it would try to ensure that the personal union works out by establishing a royal marriage with Hungary, recreating the alliance with Hungary if it has been broken (which should usually be unnecessary since it already exists at start) and pushes the relations with Hungary to +200; it would serve as a checker event that removes a possible vassalisation of Austria to Hungary (which happens sometimes) and it would promote an election of Albrecht as Emperor by improving relations to all German electors by 50. The old events that vassalise Bohemia and Hungary to Austria should be removed

Succession of Sigismund

Bohemia
happens on December 9th 1437, on the day of Sigismund's death
trigger: either the "settlement" or the "Hussites_supressed" flag is activated, i.e. Sigismund has gained recognition as King of Bohemia
- I defer to Vaclav on how this event should be done. We need to decide whether we want to give a choice between Albrecht of Hapsburg and Casimir of Poland here or not, and whether we want to give the side that has not been picked a chance to get the throne nonetheless (e.g. by giving them a CB and having an event happen if they have force-vassalised or taken provinces from Bohemia that puts their candidate on the throne). The easy and safe option would be to just put Albrecht on the Bohemian throne here and have a bit of additional revoltrisk and a stabhit (while of course keeping centralisation at 0), the more interesting option would be to have a choice and a possibility for Hapsburgs and Jagellos to fight over Bohemia

This would result in the following DPs for the three countries upon the death of Albrecht (provided that they pick A choices):
Austria: aristocracy 7, centralisation 2, innovativeness 3, mercantilism 8, offensive 4, land 8, quality 4, serfdom 8
Hungary: aristocracy 9, centralisation 1, innovativeness 4, mercantilism 6, offensive 6, land 8, quality 5, serfdom 8
Bohemia: aristocracy 6, centralization 0, innovativeness 6, mercantilism 6, offensive 6, land 9, quality 6, serfdom 6

 

[Twoflower]

Now, on to the interesting part, the two chaotic decades after the death of Albrecht of Hapsburg. Two Hapsburgs, Albrecht V of Hungary, Bohemia and Austria and Friedrich IV of Tyrol, die prematurely in 1439 and leave their lands to their minor sons, Ladislaus Postumus and Sigismund. This causes a long struggle between their relatives, several other princes, some ambitious magnates, a few mercenary captains and the estates of the countries over guardianship over the two boys, regency of the countries or simply possession of a few swaths of land. This bit of history is, at least to me, quite fascinating and it would be great to have it represented well in the game. The events are rather messy and sometimes hard to understand, though, and thus let's discuss them step by step. I'd really like to have all kinds of input.
To begin with, it would be good to discuss the situation in 1439 in all four countries and how the first, basic event of the sequence - in which all four of them should get to make a rather crucial choice on their future development - should be done. First, Austria and Tyrol, the easy ones (compared to Bohemia and Hungary )

Austria

After Albrecht V's coronation as King of Hungary, he had been absent from the country almost permanently. During his absence, a commission of the Austrian estates ruled the country. Upon Albrecht's death, this commission summoned a diet which appointed Friedrich III preliminary ruler and guardian for the expected child of Albrecht's widow Elisabeth. When Ladislaus Postumus was born however, the estates, under the influence of the ambitious upstart Ulrich of Eyczing, decided to make Friedrich's brother Albrecht VI guardian of Ladislaus, for the reasons that on the one hand, Friedrich, while appearing phlegmatic and weak, was in fact quite strong-minded and opposed to sharing his power with anybody, and on the other, Albrecht, jealous of his brother and badly in need of money (he was called "Prodigus", the squanderer), was willing to make almost whatever concessions to his brother's enemies that it took, i.e. Albrecht seemed a much more profitable choice to the estates and especially to Eyczing. Albrecht also concluded an agreement with Ladislaus' mother Elisabeth at Komorn on April 10th 1440 and later even an alliance against Friedrich. This did not bother Friedrich much, though, since he still thought he was rightful guardian of the boy-king and, more importantly, he had already assumed guardianship and had to be forced to release Ladislaus, which he simply did not. What followed was a prolonged struggle over the guardianship, first with Albrecht, who gave up rather soon, then with Ulrich of Eyczing and Ulrich of Cilli, who founded a league against Friedrich with the Austrian estates at Mailberg in 1451 and succeeded in this after sieging Friedrich in Wiener Neustadt in 1453.
In terms of the setup event in 1439, this means that Austria could get to choose the guardian of Ladislaus. The question that needs answering here is which difference the ahistorical choice would make for the further development. IMO, there should be four differences:
1. monarch stats: Friedrich as regent would have better ADM and DIP while Albrecht would have better MIL (he should probably also be a military leader)
2. DPs: Friedrich did not like sharing power or making compromises, and despite his numerous failures, his rule was stronger than that of Albrecht V and would have been stronger than that of Albrecht VI. Friedrich would give +1 centralisation, Albrecht -1 centralisation and +1 aristocracy
3. relations: Friedrich was Duke of Styria and would not have been too pleased about not becoming guardian; this should at least cause a severe relations hit, perhaps even a war with Styria
4. events: not making Friedrich guardian would avoid the events for the League of Mailberg, and several events that affect Albrecht VI would relate to Austria (most importantly, Austria would get Baden in 1446 and Albrecht's part of the partition in 1457)

Tyrol

Just like Albrecht of Austria, Friedrich IV of Tyrol died prematurely and left a minor heir in 1439. By customary law of the Hapsburg dynasty, regency was always to be assumed by the eldest member of the dynasty. This person was Friedrich of Styria, and indeed the estates of Tyrol soon accepted him as regent. Somewhat unsurprisingly however, this decision was contested by Friedrich's brother Albrecht VI, who obstinately tried to assume the regency over Tyrol or at least over a part of the country. Friedrich III was confirmed as regent anyway and had to give the guarantee that he would not remove Sigismund from the country without the consent of representatives of Tyrol. Since he intended to prolong his regency as much as possible, he soon broke this vow and took Sigismund to his court. While there was already some dissent in Tyrol because of this, the country was upset even more when Friedrich refused to end his regency and pass over the country to then 16-year-old Sigismund in 1443, and instead drafted up a treaty with Sigismund that extended his regency until 1449. As a reaction to this, the estates of Tyrol began to prepare an uprising to either liberate their Duke or shake off Hapsburg rule, possibly joining the Swiss confederacy which had already sent emissaries that were offering support for the latter case. This eventually caused Friedrich to give in and release Sigismund in 1446, however only after talking him into accepting another treaty (on April 6th 1446) by which Albrecht VI received the Vorlande in Swabia and Alsace in exchange for returning his holdings in Styria and Carinthia to Friedrich.
As far as I can see, there are two issues that need to be solved regarding Tyrol:
1. Whether Tyrol should get to choose the regent just like Austria; differences between the choices would be similar to those described for Austria, however this choice would be less crucial than for Austria and thus perhaps not worth the effort.
2. Whether and how we should give Tyrol a possibility to keep Baden in 1446. I plan to make Baden independent in 1446 within the historical course of events, not only for the sake of historicity but mostly because Albrecht VI's Baden could then be involved in events for the fight over Austria between Friedrich and Albrecht after the death of Ladislaus. The province would be returned to Tyrol (by the historical choices) upon Albrecht's death in 1463. Since Tyrol would get the province back anyway, such a choice might not be absolutely necessary, but still it might feel kinda bad to be forced to lose the province in 1446. The simple possibility to give Tyrol a choice is to just let them reject the treaty in 1446, however then there will probably be no reason to pick the A choice and we would not have an independent Baden that can be involved in the struggle for Austria.

 

[unmerged(17991)]

Spread of Hussite doctrines to Upper Hungary

Hungary
happens between 1425 and 1435 (or so)
triggers: Hussites exist, Hungary owns at least one Slovak province (Presburg or Carpathia)
- this event is about the intrusion of Hussite preachers and the acceptance of their teachings in Upper Hungary, i.e. modern day Slovakia. Hungary would get the choice to either
A: persecute Hussites within its borders, which would give some (+5 or so) province revoltrisk in Presburg and Carpathia, reduce innovativeness by 1, reduce relations with the Hussites, improve relations with the Romanists and the Pope and trigger the Hussite "Slovak Hussites are persecuted" event
B: condemn, but tacitly tolerate Hussites in Upper Hungary, which would reduce stability, increase innovativeness by 1, improve relations with the Hussites and decrease relations with Romanists and Pope (and won't allow for the Hussite "Liberation" of Slovakia sequence to happen)

Slovak Hussites are persecuted

Hussite Bohemia
triggered by Hungary's Hussites in Slovakia event
if it is possible to add a trigger to a triggered event (so that the event is only triggered if the additional condition is fulfilled), which I'm not sure about, it might be good to trigger this on the "Taborites" flag, since the sequence is sort of questionable for Utraquist-dominated Hussites and I'd like it to be a little "goodie" for Taborite Hussites who do not have any other events and no possibility to turn back into Bohemia. If it is not possible to check for this, it would be ok for this event to happen for all Hussites and then just have an additional trigger for the second event.
- the Hussites are told that their faith has spread to Upper Hungary and that due the persecution of Hussites by the King of Hungary Hussite armies might be perceived as liberators by parts of the Slovak populace; as actual effect, this event would just give a CB on Hungary

Liberation of our Slovak brethren

Hussite Bohemia
can happen anytime after 1425 until 1450
triggers: "Slovak Hussites are persecuted" has happened, the "Taborites" flag is still set, the Hussites own Presburg and Carpathia
- the Hussites gain Slovak state culture and perhaps a few vps and the two Slovak provinces are turned reformed, which won't have any immediate effect, but will result in them being reformed after the Reformation. I'd give out the state culture rather than cores because still nobody (except themselves) would acknowledge a legitimate claim of Hussite Bohemia on Upper Hungary

Very interesting idea, but I have two objections.

First, Sigismund should not have the option to be tolerant in Hungary while he does not have such option in the Romanist Bohemia. The current Hussite war sequence makes the split of Bohemia unavoidable. In other words, the Romanists (Sigismund) do not have the option to avoid the war by accepting Hus' teachings, and the Hussites do not have the option to accept Sigismund in 1419.

My suggestion is that the Spread of Hussite doctrine should just be a one-choice event informing Hungary about the spread of Hussitism. It should happen sometimes between 1425 and 1427. Increased RR and -1 innovativeness should be the only effects (because Sigismund's international political stance on the Hussites does not change).

The changes in relations should go to a 1419 one-option informative event that would set the relations and inform Hungary that Sigismund has inherited Vaclav IV and that they are now in personal union (and military alliance in EU2 terms) with the Romanists. (Correct me if I am wrong, but we do not make the Romanists Hungarian vassals, do we?).

Second, the Taborites never really contemplated attaching Slovakia. They organized several raids between 1428 and 1433, and had some support (scouting, recruiting) from local Hussites, they even occupied certain cities, but never thought of attaching this territory to Bohemia (even though Slovak Hussites were persecuted).

This does matter only for the description of the 'Persecution' event. The event would be called Raid to Upper Hungary, and it would inform the Hussites that if they invade this region, they can get some support from the locals.

The event would fire in 1428 and would trigger only for 'Taborite' flag (which is perfectly historic because the Utraquists did not organize any raids after they seized the power in 1434). Since it would not be contingent on the A-option in the Hungarian event, there should not be any issue with this.

The 'Liberation' event is fine. I would not make it dependent on the flag, if the Utraquists manage to capture these provinces, they should get the same benefits. In fact, there should be two events, one for each province - if the Hussites get them piece by piece (and we need two because of the change in religion). The Iglau compromise with Sigismund, however, should make the Hussites loose Slovak culture, cede any provinces back to Hungary, and perhaps turn the religion there back to Catholic.

These events than can have an impact on Jan Jiskra depending on how you propose to treat him. (The bottom line is that had Slovakia been Hussite, Jan Jiskra would have been stronger.)

Renewed unrest

Bohemia
- this could either be a separate event that happens early in 1437 or (probably preferable) be integrated into the Coronation in Prague event. As Vaclav described, opposition towards Sigismund arose again soon after his coronation, and he basically had to flee from a country that was again fragmented into local fiefs controlled by local warlords and their federations. Thus, either in a separate event or as additional effects of the coronation event, Bohemia would get -2 centralization (back to 0 once more), a stabhit and some temporary revoltrisk.

Agree. The only proposed change is that it should be an independent event firing at 30 September 1437 when, during the deliberations of the Diet, Divis Borek z Miletinka, the Utraquist leader that won at Lipany, publicly accused Sigismund of 19 offences against the Czech nation. (Earlier in 1437, Sigismund had an ephemere success because he managed to capture and hang Jan Rohac z Dube, a prominent Taborite leader who had refused to recognize Sigismund's authority). On a technical note, the RR should not be cumulative with the RR for Albrecht of Hapsburg.

Succession of Sigismund

Bohemia
happens on December 9th 1437, on the day of Sigismund's death
trigger: either the "settlement" or the "Hussites_supressed" flag is activated, i.e. Sigismund has gained recognition as King of Bohemia
- I defer to Vaclav on how this event should be done. We need to decide whether we want to give a choice between Albrecht of Hapsburg and Casimir of Poland here or not, and whether we want to give the side that has not been picked a chance to get the throne nonetheless (e.g. by giving them a CB and having an event happen if they have force-vassalised or taken provinces from Bohemia that puts their candidate on the throne). The easy and safe option would be to just put Albrecht on the Bohemian throne here and have a bit of additional revoltrisk and a stabhit (while of course keeping centralisation at 0), the more interesting option would be to have a choice and a possibility for Hapsburgs and Jagellos to fight over Bohemia.

I think that our choice depends on the availability of a knowledgeable and reasonable Polish guy who could explain why the Jagellonians behaved like they did. My sources state their actions as a fact without explaining the rationale. A perfect example is 1439/1440. In 1438, the Poles had shortly fought for Prince Casimir even though he only had a minority support. In 1440, Casimir would have been elected by a comfortable majority, but Poland decided to send him to Lithuania...

Please, ask the HC guy responsible for Poland if he can recommend somebody who would help on these Jagellonian issues. This could be a huge work; it would start with Korybut during the Hussite wars and end one hundred years later when Sigismund the Old unexpectedly failed to advance his candidature in 1526...

V.A.