Teutonic Order and Livonian Order

[Toio]

Well, this has been a matter of discussion and disagreement probably ever since EU2 was released (or at least since people have been working on mods).
It is certainly true that the Teutonic Order had a common administrative structure, and that the Landmeister of Livland was subject to the Hochmeister and Landmeister of Prussia (those two offices were united after 1324), however the Order always maintained Livonia and Prussia as separate entities, with different Landmeisters who often followed different policies and eventually went their separate ways. After the Second Peace of Thorn, when the Hochmeister had to pledge allegiance to the King of Poland for the Prussian territories, there was quite a clear difference between Prussia, which was part of the Kingdom of Poland, and Livonia, which was not.
Also, the political structure of the territories was quite distinct. While in Prussia, the Order ruled almost solely, in Livonia it had to share authority with the Archbishop of Riga and the Livonian cities who enjoyed a significant deal more autonomy than their Prussian counterparts. In 1419, these three parties established the Livonian diet as some kind of central authority in Livonia (look e.g. at this, which I wouldn't consider entirely authoritative - for starters, the author fails to point out at any point what kind of entity the "Livonian Confederation" was and when it was founded -, but still provides an interesting overview). So yes, there were significant political differences between Prussia and Livonia that justify separating them.

I generally think that the AGCEEP's current depiction - the Livonian Order being an independent vassal of the Teutonic Order - is quite accurate; the only real problem about this is when the Livonian Order breaks the vassalage, which really couldn't have happened so easily - but this is a problem with the representation of almost any feudal or quasi-feudal relationship in EU2.

I think one change that might be worth contemplation, however, is a cosmetic one. Calling the Prussian branch of the Teutonic Order is somewhat misleading, since the Teutonic Order was present in both Livonia and Prussia, and the current naming in a way implies the Livonian Order being something different from the Teutonic Order. As an easy solution, it might be good to rename the Teutonic Order (LAT) to "Prussian Order".
Also, as mentioned above, Livonia was not ruled solely by the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order; there was a complicated power structure including the Order, the Archbishop of Riga, several minor bishoprics (which were usually, but not always occupied by members of the Order) and the cities, so in fact, it might be questionable whether having the country represent just the Livonian Order is really accurate.

I agree with all you say, but I think we (AGCEEP) already mentioned a name change once, IIRC it was the Prussian confederation, I supported it, but it was ruled out.

Then again.......it might have been a different game or EEP

Also, we recently changed the high % of annexation that LAT did on LIV in the early part of the game. Its now less likely for this to happen

 

[Third Angel]

replacing post 93

below is my fix

Seeing that you've submitted this post, I don't understand this part of the trigger, OR with one argument only doesn't make sense:

		[COLOR="Yellow"]AND = {
			OR = {
				control = { province = 301 data = POL } #Danzig
				}
			OR = {
				control = { province = 289 data = POL } #Memel
				}
			OR = {
				control = { province = 290 data = POL } #Prussia
				}[/COLOR]
		}

If you mean that POL should control one of the three provinces, it should be put that way:

OR = {
	control = { province = 301 data = POL } #Danzig
	control = { province = 289 data = POL } #Memel
	control = { province = 290 data = POL } #Prussia
}

 

[Toio]

Seeing that you've submitted this post, I don't understand this part of the trigger, OR with one argument only doesn't make sense:

		[COLOR="Yellow"]AND = {
			OR = {
				control = { province = 301 data = POL } #Danzig
				}
			OR = {
				control = { province = 289 data = POL } #Memel
				}
			OR = {
				control = { province = 290 data = POL } #Prussia
				}[/COLOR]
		}

If you mean that POL should control one of the three provinces, it should be put that way:

OR = {
	control = { province = 301 data = POL } #Danzig
	control = { province = 289 data = POL } #Memel
	control = { province = 290 data = POL } #Prussia
}

You could be correct in the way you presented it, but I have always done it "my way" and it works as an example the FRA event :"the question of Burgundy" (3220) . that said , i have no reservations in changing to your (normal) system as it seems easier.
Always willing to learn
Isn't the "and" required to ensure the "or" part does not take first option?


I do have one reservation about this event ( be it old one or new one) is that Kustrin might always stay with LAT.......unsure if this is what is wanted for gameplay.....maybe you have a better idea .

 

[Third Angel]

You could be correct in the way you presented it, but I have always done it "my way" and it works as an example the FRA event :"the question of Burgundy" (3220) . that said , i have no reservations in changing to your (normal) system as it seems easier.
Always willing to learn
Isn't the "and" required to ensure the "or" part does not take first option?

If you want POL to hold at least one out of the three provinces for the event to fire then the way I scripted it is definately enough.

Now regarding FRA_3320's trigger, I'm unsure as to what it is supposed to mean:

		AND = {
			OR = {
				owned = { province = 379 data = BUR } #Artois
				owned = { province = 380 data = BUR } #Flandern
			}
			OR = {
				owned = { province = 379 data = BUR } #Artois
				owned = { province = 383 data = BUR } #Picardie
			}
			OR = {
				owned = { province = 380 data = BUR } #Flandern
				owned = { province = 383 data = BUR } #Picardie
			}
		}

My guess is that FRA should hold two out of three provinces. It will work the way it is scripted but firstly the AND above is useless as it is always the default operator, secondly it would be clearer this way in my opinion but that may be just me:

		OR = {
			AND = {
				owned = { province = 379 data = BUR } #Artois
				owned = { province = 380 data = BUR } #Flandern
			}
			AND = {
				owned = { province = 379 data = BUR } #Artois
				owned = { province = 383 data = BUR } #Picardie
			}
			AND = {
				owned = { province = 380 data = BUR } #Flandern
				owned = { province = 383 data = BUR } #Picardie
			}
		}

This is the way this sort of trigger is usually scripted, take for instance the KoI formation events.

I do have one reservation about this event ( be it old one or new one) is that Kustrin might always stay with LAT.......unsure if this is what is wanted for gameplay.....maybe you have a better idea .

Nothing to add about the event itself as this is not an area I have a lot if interest in, was just checking the Submissions thread and commenting on the syntax that looked weird to me. That said, this event always seemed to work fine so I'm not sure why you want to modify it, but I'll trust you on this.

 

[Toio]

If you want POL to hold at least one out of the three provinces for the event to fire then the way I scripted it is definately enough.

Now regarding FRA_3320's trigger, I'm unsure as to what it is supposed to mean:

		AND = {
			OR = {
				owned = { province = 379 data = BUR } #Artois
				owned = { province = 380 data = BUR } #Flandern
			}
			OR = {
				owned = { province = 379 data = BUR } #Artois
				owned = { province = 383 data = BUR } #Picardie
			}
			OR = {
				owned = { province = 380 data = BUR } #Flandern
				owned = { province = 383 data = BUR } #Picardie
			}
		}

My guess is that FRA should hold two out of three provinces. It will work the way it is scripted but firstly the AND above is useless as it is always the default operator, secondly it would be clearer this way in my opinion but that may be just me:

		OR = {
			AND = {
				owned = { province = 379 data = BUR } #Artois
				owned = { province = 380 data = BUR } #Flandern
			}
			AND = {
				owned = { province = 379 data = BUR } #Artois
				owned = { province = 383 data = BUR } #Picardie
			}
			AND = {
				owned = { province = 380 data = BUR } #Flandern
				owned = { province = 383 data = BUR } #Picardie
			}
		}

This is the way this sort of trigger is usually scripted, take for instance the KoI formation events.


Nothing to add about the event itself as this is not an area I have a lot if interest in, was just checking the Submissions thread and commenting on the syntax that looked weird to me. That said, this event always seemed to work fine so I'm not sure why you want to modify it, but I'll trust you on this.

I want POL to control Kustrin and one of the others for event to fire , Kustrin is a must.

Changes where asked by twoflower , i was only helping. I too have no issue with old event and maybe I should not have stuck my nose in it. My testing has shown a weakness in BRA due to the lack of an early kustrin to BRA.
Anyway , I suggested further tests or a scrapping of my changes

 

[pigglet82]

Sorry to butt in like this but this is a subject I'm really interested in.

Can't agree to the arguments that separate Livonians from TO as well. Historically it was one Teutonic order state after all, which Included the Livonian Sword Brothers (The latter not beeing separated in geographical and administrative terms in the sources I checked so far). Politically it makes sense indeed to count them as one entity just to represent the TO state beeing one amalgamated territorial object. This is what I think

The complicated, and changing, relationship between the TO and the LO is hard to depict in a good way within the EU framework, but I must disagree with you when you say that the LO was "not beeing separated in geographical and administrative terms".

"Although forming part of the Order of the Teutonic Knights, the Livonian Knights preserved an effective amount of autonomy. Their Masters were elected without interference from the High Master is Prussia, who was confined to the right of confirmation and a few other formal privileges. These were retained by him until, in 1513, the Livonian Master Wolter von Plettenberg bought complete independence from Prussia, though he remained subject to the emperor himself." -- The Rise of the Baltic Question by Walther Kirchner.

Well, this has been a matter of discussion and disagreement probably ever since EU2 was released (or at least since people have been working on mods).
It is certainly true that the Teutonic Order had a common administrative structure, and that the Landmeister of Livland was subject to the Hochmeister and Landmeister of Prussia (those two offices were united after 1324), however the Order always maintained Livonia and Prussia as separate entities, with different Landmeisters who often followed different policies and eventually went their separate ways. After the Second Peace of Thorn, when the Hochmeister had to pledge allegiance to the King of Poland for the Prussian territories, there was quite a clear difference between Prussia, which was part of the Kingdom of Poland, and Livonia, which was not.
Also, the political structure of the territories was quite distinct. While in Prussia, the Order ruled almost solely, in Livonia it had to share authority with the Archbishop of Riga and the Livonian cities who enjoyed a significant deal more autonomy than their Prussian counterparts. In 1419, these three parties established the Livonian diet as some kind of central authority in Livonia (look e.g. at this, which I wouldn't consider entirely authoritative - for starters, the author fails to point out at any point what kind of entity the "Livonian Confederation" was and when it was founded -, but still provides an interesting overview). So yes, there were significant political differences between Prussia and Livonia that justify separating them.

The Livonian Confederation was formed in 1435 by the Livonian Order, the archbishopric of Riga, the bishoprics of Courland, Dorpat, Ösel-Wiek and Reval, plus the cities of Riga, Reval and Dorpat. It was formed in part to strengthen the defense of Livonia after the Knights were defeated in the Battle of Swienta.

I generally think that the AGCEEP's current depiction - the Livonian Order being an independent vassal of the Teutonic Order - is quite accurate; the only real problem about this is when the Livonian Order breaks the vassalage, which really couldn't have happened so easily - but this is a problem with the representation of almost any feudal or quasi-feudal relationship in EU2.

Since EU only has one type of vassalage I actually think it's more accurate to have the Livonian Order as an independent state -- at least after 1435 (see above). The Herrmeister of the Livonian Order did pursue his own independent poltical course, both domestically and towards his surrounding neighbours and the two Orders rarely fought alongside each other in wars.

I think one change that might be worth contemplation, however, is a cosmetic one. Calling the Prussian branch of the Teutonic Order is somewhat misleading, since the Teutonic Order was present in both Livonia and Prussia, and the current naming in a way implies the Livonian Order being something different from the Teutonic Order. As an easy solution, it might be good to rename the Teutonic Order (LAT) to "Prussian Order".

Depends on what you mean by the TO being present in Livonia? Other then formally being the overlord I can't remember any actuall presence by the TO.

 

[Twoflower]

Sorry to butt in like this but this is a subject I'm really interested in.

No problem at all, it's not like we're a closed society It's always great to have informed input, and I absolutely agree with your notion that the current depiction of the Orders is not entirely perfect.

The Livonian Confederation was formed in 1435 by the Livonian Order, the archbishopric of Riga, the bishoprics of Courland, Dorpat, Ösel-Wiek and Reval, plus the cities of Riga, Reval and Dorpat. It was formed in part to strengthen the defense of Livonia after the Knights were defeated in the Battle of Swienta.

Thank you I have been looking for a good source that explains the structure and influence of the Confederation for quite a while, since I had it in the back of my mind to rework Livonia a bit -if you have such a source, and would be willing to write events yourself, and/or make suggestions on events and setup changes that should be implemented, that would be appreciated a lot.

Since EU only has one type of vassalage I actually think it's more accurate to have the Livonian Order as an independent state -- at least after 1435 (see above). The Herrmeister of the Livonian Order did pursue his own independent poltical course, both domestically and towards his surrounding neighbours and the two Orders rarely fought alongside each other in wars.

That is quite true, and as you said, Livonia was not ruled only by the order, but also by the Archbishop of Riga and the cities, who were not subject to the Teutonic Order. It might be quite justifiable to rename the Livonian Order to "Livonia" or "Terra Mariana" in order to clarify that. Anyway, I agree that the vassalage probably isn't really accurate.

Depends on what you mean by the TO being present in Livonia? Other then formally being the overlord I can't remember any actuall presence by the TO.

Well, the Livonian Order is the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order, isn't it? My point was that the current "Teutonic Order" country represents only its Prussian branch and its therefore wrong to have its name imply that it represents the whole Order, which the Livonian Order is a part of as well.

 

[pigglet82]

That is quite true, and as you said, Livonia was not ruled only by the order, but also by the Archbishop of Riga and the cities, who were not subject to the Teutonic Order. It might be quite justifiable to rename the Livonian Order to "Livonia" or "Terra Mariana" in order to clarify that. Anyway, I agree that the vassalage probably isn't really accurate.

Well, Terra Mariana would be a good name for the whole of Livonia, but only up until the Brethren of the Sword Brothers joined the TO in 1237 I think. After that I think that the Livonian Order is still the best name, if not perfect. Renaming it brings up a lot of otherproblems since there wasn't any country called "Livonia". What rulers would you use for instance?

Well, the Livonian Order is the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Order, isn't it? My point was that the current "Teutonic Order" country represents only its Prussian branch and its therefore wrong to have its name imply that it represents the whole Order, which the Livonian Order is a part of as well.

The Livonian Order was an autonomous branch of the Teutonic Order, and had their own name, domain, and Masters. So in a sense they were much more the Livonian Order than "part of" the Teutonic Order.

Thank you I have been looking for a good source that explains the structure and influence of the Confederation for quite a while, since I had it in the back of my mind to rework Livonia a bit -if you have such a source, and would be willing to write events yourself, and/or make suggestions on events and setup changes that should be implemented, that would be appreciated a lot.

See my PM for about this.

 

[Toio]

i removed my submission for the Kustrin issues because it does not work.......a peace deal between POL and TO always concedes kustrin to POL before event can fire