- Sep 29, 2013
Just want to let you know that this is a great story and that I'm generally a lurker. I always enjoy your style of writing because I always learn real historical fact too.
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
The night is darkest before the dawn however! Although, with all our entangling marriages, alliances, and location at the heart of Europe -- I don't think Austria/Habsburg Monarchy can avoid getting dragged into constant conflicts. As it stands to as far as I have progressed in-game; I'm at risk of entering 3 succession wars if things don't roll the right way!No matter how bright the sunshine appears, clouds on the horizon always gather.
When a bunch of peasants rose up and conquered the Archbishopric (Alsace starts as an Archbishopric/Theocratic state isn't it?) and the government became a "kingdom" instead. Since the HRE historically didn't have kingdoms but duchies and other types of principalities, I'm referring to all "kingdoms" (as they are listed in-game) as duchies. Habsburg dukes a plenty!When was Elsaß elevated to Kingdom-tier?
Ugh. Tell me about it. Just like with my response to stnylan, a potential 3 succession wars (2 of which will be with France) if things don't roll my way. Plus, I have so many entangling alliances I'm just waiting for Spain to DoW one of my Italian allies... :glare:I do enjoy that Austrian motto. Of course, the corollary to that motto is "and when you go to war, you'll be related to half of Europe."
Hi DKM! For all my time here, I guess as a moderately old now, I would definitely say that lurkers comprise the majority of readers and people who hopefully enjoy an AAR rather than the constant handful of commentators after all or most updates. But it's always nice to see them come around and leave a comment now and again!Just want to let you know that this is a great story and that I'm generally a lurker. I always enjoy your style of writing because I always learn real historical fact too.
Typical that a fellow traveler would comment about the AAR at the very end of his comment! No teleology in history is about as close to being 'objective' as I would ever pronounce myself. While as a philosopher, it seemingly clear that there is objective truth, to the extent that humans would be able to know that through any objective means, to me, seems doubtful. One of the reasons why I partially belong to the Annales School of history. No explicit teleology involved in that theory of history, and there commitment to covering as many factors as possible is always breathtaking once you read one of their great works, like anything by Braudel.On the discussion on the late 1st and early 2nd page--feudal societies differed markedly from market societies, and while the beginnings of capitalist relations existed during the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance in cities, 'capitalism' as we see it is a relatively recent product of a series of revolutions in the late 18th-early 19th centuries. Society was just constructed in a wholly different way, you can't have modern capitalism in a society which sees its rulers as being a priori superior because of inherited supernatural traits, and while some things existed for trade in the Renaissance, the connection of the major investment of the time (land) to non-secular prestige (aristocratic titles) meant that trade as we know it was highly limited until a series of political changes weakened the aristocracy and their ideological basis for existence.
To construct history as a series of failed attempts at capitalism is to construct capitalism as a nonideological, neutral force of good. This is severely ahistorical (both because it contributes to a particularly American ignorance of how bloody the liberal revolutions were and because it portends that all of history is being driven by some non-human force) and ignores that many of the political theorists of the Renaissance were just as convinced of the perfection of feudalism (a synthesis of aristocracy, democracy, and monarchy, what better could you want?) as we are of ours.
(also the AAR is great)
Why conquer through force of arms when you can do it through marriage and diplomacy?Excellent, marriage politics and pragmatism. That's what made Austria great, and it will make us greater still. Just don't go in the Balkan - that's where empires die (and Afghanistan, but that seems somehow less likely)!
Absolutely no overseas or over continent colonies for Austria...unless we inherit Spain or something crazy like that.Yes if you're conducting a war in Afghanistan as Austria you're probably doing something wrong
If I were not playing to write an AAR, then having Sweden in Afghanistan is completely understandable! But whenever I do an I AAR, I adjust my gameplay to reflect some form of historicity.Subscribed! A Volksmarschall AAr is always incredibly enjoyable to read!
You're not doing something wrong if you're invading Afghanistan as Austria! You're doing something incredibly, incredibly amazing, that is nonetheless ahistorical.
Prolonged peace is an anomaly for Austria. It just doesn't exist...I feel that a prolonged period of peace will be the exception.
And even more to come!Hey, there are those entangling matrimonial ties! That was awfully fast.
Hey LanMisa, nice to see you over here. Well, the footnote specifies what you said. Brandenburg was part of the HRE and then, with the title "king in Prussia" elevated itself into a Kingdom. So yes, "Prussia" was technically not part of the HRE even if the Electors of Brandenburg, who ruled over Prussia, were. Much like how Hungary, despite being ruled by the same Habsburg Archduke of Austria, was never part of the HRE as well despite having a ruler presiding over it that was. Brandenburg, while being part of Prussia (the most important part), was still part of the HRE. I thought Brandenburg was a Margraviate and not a duchy(?), Prussia was a Duchy before the union but didn't supersede Brandenburg since its territories were outside the borders of the empire. And yes the Kingdom of Bohemia still technically existed after it was integrated with the Habsburg Monarchy too, with just the Archduke sitting also as King. HRE politics isn't really something I want to discuss in-depth, only because of the great amount of red-tape involved with it and all the hand ties that come with it. But you're right, I should change the wording to be more specific.It's nice to see someone else to be that historically correct regarding the term of "Kingdom" in the Holy Roman Empire. I know, as a historian you SHOULD be, but still. It means that I am no longer alone!
...Well, to be REALLY exact, Bohemia being the only Kingdom in the HRE stayed that way. Prussia was never part of the Empire, and technically they were still Dukes of Brandenburg regarding the Reich, but also King in Prussia. Or else you had to add England as souvereign over Hannover in their later years, too.
Austria's location and (generally) leader of the H.R.E. means conflicts a plenty, or risk alienating the electors by not defending the empire even if some of the states that request your help are otherwise pointless and useless... :glare:Hardly a true hegemon, if one has to fight for it.
Footnotes should be as specific as possible for obvious reasons, so your bringing that to my attention that I wasn't as clear and specific as I could (or should) have been is actually much appreciated!Nice changes! I did not want to force you to rewrite it, but since you are a historian (with much knowledge of European history), I thought you to be a little bit more correct.
And yes, Brandenburg was a March or Margraviate. But since I never studied history (couldn't see me making any income with it, unfortunately) I only know the names I learned in school: Markgrafschaft oder Kurfürstentum. And I was too lazy to open wikipedia or dict.
I think it would be much too difficult to be more correct regarding titles in the HRE. I mean, how should the AI know when you inherited another Kingdom or not? This is left for Crusader Kings. Or just imagine a real world map with hundreds of realms in the German lands alone! The AE to play there would be over 9000!
Well, this should be manageable: Just ally with one of the Saxon-cultured countries (why not Saxony?) and aid them in every offensive war in that region. Or ally Poland and get the most out of the Order for yourself, then sell the provinces to your Prussian target. Or just ally with the Order and see them survive until they form Prussia themselves.And I'm closely hoping for a strong Brandenburg, if not Prussia to emerge in the north, only so France and the Ottoman Empire aren't the only two powers I'll be locked in a struggle against for the duration of the AAR. Otherwise, it might get repetitive, "oh, another war with France!"
While my penchant for historicity and therefore, a somewhat historically accurate development for the purposes of the AAR which allows me to reuse old sources as benchmarks for the history (even if Burgundy is still around so far in the middle of the sixteenth century, :glare will not go as far as a gameplay manipulation (I would be lying if I didn't think of that as a completely legit yet "gamey" tactic even if it would be to my overall liking as a historian and writer of the AAR). To the extent that I've played in the game - Brandenburg has done okay, having won Neuwark(sp?) and annexed Pomerania but I have doubts if they'll take on Poland without some serious help and form Prussia. Although, The Hanseatic League is becoming a bit too large for my liking in Northern Germany, and being Protestant, and my keeping the Habsburgs Catholic -- well, the planned/expected Chapter 7 of this AAR will be dealing with that cataclysmic showdown - I suppose it can be akin to OTL 30 Years' War.Well, this should be manageable: Just ally with one of the Saxon-cultured countries (why not Saxony?) and aid them in every offensive war in that region. Or ally Poland and get the most out of the Order for yourself, then sell the provinces to your Prussian target. Or just ally with the Order and see them survive until they form Prussia themselves.
Well hopefully when the Protestant Reformation becomes a thing (and trust me when I say it will become a thing.), you'll get that wish...though I probably wouldn't guarantee it will be Brandenburg-Prussia.Austria's location and (generally) leader of the H.R.E. means conflicts a plenty, or risk alienating the electors by not defending the empire even if some of the states that request your help are otherwise pointless and useless... :glare:
Footnotes should be as specific as possible for obvious reasons, so your bringing that to my attention that I wasn't as clear and specific as I could (or should) have been is actually much appreciated!
And that makes sense, I was pretty sure Brandenburg was a margraviate while Prussia was a duchy. Although, I presume their dynastic title was probably a combination of both after the union? Once they elevate themselves to a kingdom, it gets a little bit easier - and of course, it marks the emergence of Brandenburg-Prussia/Prussia as a major power in continental affairs.
And I'm closely hoping for a strong Brandenburg, if not Prussia to emerge in the north, only so France and the Ottoman Empire aren't the only two powers I'll be locked in a struggle against for the duration of the AAR. Otherwise, it might get repetitive, "oh, another war with France!"
The Hansa is the current leader and strongest member of the Northern German Protestant states at present. And well, a major conflict with them is looming. I would, just for historicity - like to see Brandenburg-Prussia just for the easier purpose of writing, but contemporary Brandenburg in the game is decently well off with 6 provinces and I think, something like 14-15 units.Well hopefully when the Protestant Reformation becomes a thing (and trust me when I say it will become a thing.), you'll get that wish...though I probably wouldn't guarantee it will be Brandenburg-Prussia.