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.
No matter how bright the sunshine appears, clouds on the horizon always gather.
When was Elsaß elevated to Kingdom-tier?
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."
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.
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)
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)!
Yes if you're conducting a war in Afghanistan as Austria you're probably doing something wrong
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.
I feel that a prolonged period of peace will be the exception.
Hey, there are those entangling matrimonial ties! That was awfully fast.
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.
Hardly a true hegemon, if one has to fight for it.
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!
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!"
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.
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!"
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.