• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
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.

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! :confused:

When was Elsaß elevated to Kingdom-tier? :p

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! :p

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." :p

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:

Nice to have you aboard etranger01! :)

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.

Hi DKM! For all my time here, I guess as a moderately old now, :p 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! ;)

And if you learn something historical/factual from my AARs, then I can breathe easy knowing that the main purpose for my AARs is being taken away from the readers. :cool: Naturally, I tend not to play Paradox games the way I do when I decide to do an AAR ("semi-historical" as opposed to do whatever I want, since the purpose of all my history-book AARs is to try and largely replicate the historicity of the past, with certain obvious alternative history developments, but still keep it firmly in the grounds of historical). Glad to know you enjoy my work! Now if only as many people read my actual work as they read my AARs! :p


And at that end, if anyone wants to learn about Byzantine society, state, politics, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, you can always travel over to read The Decline and Fall of Roman Civilization! :cool: (because Byzantine history is what I generally write about in real life too!) Plus, it is a gameplay history (at least that gameplay is dictating the writing, even if it has a grand total of 2 or 3 screenshots through 20 pages I think!) :rofl: *in case you didn't want to find it in the signature!*
 
Last edited:
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. :p
 
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)

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.

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)!

Why conquer through force of arms when you can do it through marriage and diplomacy? ;)

Yes if you're conducting a war in Afghanistan as Austria you're probably doing something wrong

Absolutely no overseas or over continent colonies for Austria...unless we inherit Spain or something crazy like that.

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. :p

If I were not playing to write an AAR, then having Sweden in Afghanistan is completely understandable! :eek: But whenever I do an I AAR, I adjust my gameplay to reflect some form of historicity.



---

Book Review Time:
1809: Thunder on the Danube, Napoleon's Defeat of the Habsburgs
, by John Gill, three-volume set by Frontline Books.



The Three Volumes:
Volume I: Politics, Strategies and the Road to Abensberg-Eggmuhl
Volume II: The Fall of Vienna and the Battle of Aspern
[Napoleon's first major battlefield defeat, and first as emperor]
Volume III: Wagram and Znaim

I'd like to take this time, much like with some of my books I had to read for my Byzantine historiography paper (of which I believe I provided 6 for you to read for those following that AAR), to highly recommend John H. Gill's three volume history of the War of the Fifth Coalition (1809 French Campaign against Austria), it's listed on the first page of this AAR as part of the references of works I will be using to write this AAR (more or less, serving as a basis of historicity going forward). This is simply the greatest and most stupendous volume of military history I have ever read. Mr. Gill's painstaking attention to detail (I'll give you hint, in 498 pages for his first volume, 101 pages are indices, an appendix, and notes; he has 177 notes for his first chapter, which is only 33 pages long -- and he follows that pattern throughout all three books). In his third and final volume (the largest, covering the terrible battle of Wagram itself is given over 70 pages of text to give the reader a thorough account of the bloody 2 day fight between Archduke Charles and Napoleon) he has a 50 page bibliography alone. Yet, his work just doesn't look at the military confrontations, but the political backdrop the conflict is set, and the horrors that the common people had to suffer through (especially those trapped in the towns during the battles of Aspern-Essling and Wagram), bringing a very thorough and thoughtful analysis of the Emperor's "last victorious war" at the height of the Napoleonic Era.

His three volumes total over 1500 pages, of which about 950 are actually detailing the campaign itself, and the other 450+ pages are notes, bibliography, etc. (giving the reader a great amount of supplemental text to research on their own). As per this AAR, when the time comes, if I ever reach to writing that far into the AAR -- his three volume work will be serving as a foundation for some of the events that will be transpiring around the same timeline as the Napoleonic Wars did for us. For Napoleonic historians, or military buffs, these three books (comprising the over all volume) is simply the greatest work(s) of Napoleonic military history ever produced. I'll leave you with the introduction on the back cover of the third volume: "With this third volume John Gill brings to close his magisterial [and this word gets brandished around too much, but here, it is very truly deserving] study of the war between Napoleonic France and Habsburg Austria. Second only in scale to the slaughter at Leipzig, in 1813, Wagram saw more than 320,000 men and 900 guns locked in two days of fury that ended with an Austrian retreat" (Gill highlights also, how Austria came oh so close to overturning Napoleon's flank during the early hours of combat on June 6). 320,000 men -- makes Waterloo look puny by comparison, especially when one considers that Austria fought France alone and had defeated Emperor Napoleon for the first time in a pitched battle (Aspern-Essling, in which over 150,000 men were present).

I've read plenty of Napoleonic histories and biographies that are upwards of 700 and 800 pages, that have half the amount of notes and references as Mr. Gill produces in a single volume! Better, amazon recently released (through Frontline Books) his three volume set in paperback, which as at about half the cost of what his hardcover set sells for. I recommend the paperbacks over the harcovers not only for price, but Mr. Gill has added some detail and additional references to his work as compared to his older hardcover copies (which I had read at something called a library).

He also authored earlier the fantastic book, With Eagles to Glory (covering the contributions of the German allies during the campaign, mostly focused on Bavaria's great contributions as they were at the middle of some of the most important fighting during the Battle of Wagram and performed remarkably well).
 
Last edited:
Chapter 1

The Alsace Crisis is one of many examples of the negative fallout of Frederick’s policy of conquest through marriage, but at the same time reflects the great success of his diplomatic policies that would prove so influential for generations of Habsburgs. Naturally, with such efforts there would have been no crisis to begin with – but the necessity to maintain a Habsburg presence on the newly established throne was a major concern. Archduke Johan Karl, the emperor’s cousin, lamented over the military situation however.

The Imperial army was divided into three independent forces – the Army of Germany, commanded by Archduke Johan Karl that was responsible for the German Theatre, the Army of Italy, responsible for events in Italy, and the Imperial and Royal Army stationed in Vienna, the bulwark of the Habsburg military arm but nonetheless months away from the active theater of crisis, where the Burgundians would have surely been massed uniformly to deal a decisive strike against Archduke Johan if needed, and then be on equal terms with the rest of Frederick’s forces.

But while others planned and schemed for war, Frederick schemed as well. Still wanting to maintain the peace and nourishment of the economy, Frederick sent Steinegger to the Ile de France, where the King Louis of France, a strong opponent to Burgundian ambitions, as evidence by his war of conquests where he managed to seize, of all places, Antwerp as an enclave for French trade. Why go to war when others will go to war for you? This may not have been the classic example of “an enemy of my enemy is my friend,” but this does highlight the scheming and plotting diplomatic nature of the Habsburg mind – use others to get what you want.

Naturally, France was prodded into war with Burgundy, catching Charles completely by surprise. This was the convenient cop out that Frederick was looking for over the Alsace Crisis. With Burgundy at war, Charles backed off of Burgundy’s claim of succession and the Habsburgs stood triumphant over the issue. War was averted, at least for the Habsburgs, and two months later, Ruprecht I died in his sleep, and the crown of Alsace passed into Habsburg hands and another war with Burgundy was averted.


Charles I, "The Rash," of Burgundy. Although he had elevated the Duchy of Burgundy to a kingdom during his reign, as king, his rule was marred by conflicts with the Habsburgs and Valois. His attempt to create Burgundy into a superpower had failed, but Burgundy was still a large regional power that could easily overrun the western borders of the Holy Roman Empire in quick order.

***​

The death of Ruprecht of Alsace ensured the new branch of the Habsburg family to ascend to its throne. Archduke Johan’s eldest son – Leopold Wilhelm, 18 years old, was crowned DUke of Leopold Wilhelm I of Alsace,[1] and thus began one of the many cadet branches of the Habsburg Family, and incidentally, one of the more important. Leopold Wilhelm stylized the new family’s name as Habsburg-Alsace, paying homage to his territory. A year into his rule, he was married to Princess Beatrix de Valois, and gave birth to his son – Ruprecht von Habsburg, securing the line’s future. Unlike his uncle, second uncle to be exact, Leopold Wilhem had a more proactive lifestyle as a prince-elector. While he hardly aspired, or dreamed of being Holy Roman emperor, he did plot to secure against Alsace’s enemies. Naturally he and his spawn seemed to be forever protected by the main family in Vienna – but this too was not enough.

The local bishop during the christening of Leopold’s son opined, “Duke Leopold Wilhelm strikes me as a man of grand design and ambitions, awkward for the fact that he is a prince of a small principality within the empire, but perhaps his vigor and enthusiasm will be seen in generations to come.” This prophecy would eventually prove correct, which will be detailed in later sections. For Frederick however, this was another glaring success of his diplomatic policy. Not only was Burgundy embroiled in a losing war against France, but the Duchy of Alsace was now secure under Habsburg rule, and incidentally enough, this would be critical for the future of the House of Habsburg in the age of empire.


Duke Leopold Wilhelm of Alsace. The fourth son of Emperor Frederick III, he ascended to the throne of Alsace beginning the cadet branch of the Habsburg family there. This cadet branch would later become increasingly important for later generations of Habsburgs. Notice the distinct "Habsburg Chin" (prognathism) in the portrait. The trait was common as a result Habsburg inbreeding.

This was, however, Frederick’s last great accomplishment. Three years later, at the end of the Second Pflege Tage, Frederick III passed away. His son, Maximillian, was elected emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, but was otherwise too young to truly rule. Viktor Steinegger, Frederick’s trustworthy aid and lead diplomat in the court, took control of the regency. The 12 year old boy emperor was to be entrusted to the Bishop of Salzburg for his education. He was also busy arranging for a suitor to the young Prince-Emperor. Princess Charlotte Amalie, the eldest daughter, 15, of King Christian I of Denmark was chosen.

Like Frederick III, Steinegger learned that practical marriage diplomacy was one of the cornerstones for Habsburg hegemony. Denmark had recently emerged from a war with the Hanseatic League badly scathed, but still intact. The Hansa, although a member state of the Holy Roman Empire, was becoming a large and overly powerful member of the empire in the north, and securing good relationships with the Danes, who were bitter enemies of the merchant league, seemed a good fit for both sides. Now, the two were not married when the boy was but 12, but the arrangements were made to be wed the day after his proper coronation as Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary, and Holy Roman emperor at age 15. Their marriage would later be strained due to political developments, and the death of their first son – Francis (d. 1482).

Despite this, further trouble was brewing. The Wittelsbach Dynasty in Bavaria, who would become the major rivals of the Habsburgs for control of the Holy Roman Empire, he become aggressively expansionistic in southern Germany. When Duke John IV attempted to conquer the city-state of Ulm, the Kingdom of Bohemia intervened to prevent the further expansion of Bavarian power and authority. Bohemia was allied with Austria, who naturally would not want an all-powerful Bavaria right along its borders either. The Wittelsbach, the ruling dynasty in the Duchy of Bavaria, had long aspired to dominate Europe, and like the Habsburgs, their cadet branches scattered throughout Europe. But their heartlands in Bavaria and Southern Germany would be a constant thorn in the side Habsburg hegemony.

With nowhere to turn, Steinegger informed the young Maximilian that war had befallen the land, thus bringing an end to the 13 years of peace of the Second Pflege Tage. Although the war was, itself, brief, lasting just 15 months, the Second German War was another test of Habsburg hegemony and a cause for the future centralization of their lands into a single entity, rather than multiple entities with the same ruler.


Archduke and Emperor Maximilian I, a younger portrait of the emperor around 1485. The art of marriage diplomacy reached its apex under his reign, and he also had several major political challenges during his stewardship - in principal, the German Wars.

Bavaria, expecting to have been isolated by Austria and Bohemia for its actions, looked to Poland-Lithuania to counter the two most powerful states in the Holy Roman Empire. When war broke out, Archduke Johan Karl assumed control of the armies, and the aforementioned Leopold Wilhelm von Habsburg of Alsace also mobilized to play his role in his family’s conflict with the Wittelsbach. The Second German War would be the first major war between the two great families: the Wittelsbach and the Habsburgs, but the former was always chasing the later despite relative power and prestige afforded to their seat of power in Bavaria. For the Wittelsbach Family, Duke John IV would set the stage for the long rivalry between the two houses for Catholic support within the Holy Roman Empire, and Bavaria would always remain an untrustworthy friend or enemy -- depending the circumstance -- right along Austria's immediate borders.

For Archduke Johan Karl, the situation looked somewhat bleak at the onset of the war. Both sides were about equal in numbers, with allies accounted for, the Habsburgs had about 70,000 men-in-arms and the Wittelsbach had about 60,000. The concentrated Bavarian forces also posed a threat to the Archduke’s position south of Ulm, where 15,000 Bavarian soldiers were just a day or two’s march away from Johan Karl’s Army of Germany, only 9,000 strong. Steinegger initiated a major recruitment of the free companies, about 8,000 of them, to bolster Austria’s strength, and to allow for the Imperial and Royal Army in Vienna to march into Central Bohemia and counter, ideally halting, the advancement of the Polish-Lithuanian soldiers while Bohemia, Alsace, and Austria united against Bavaria to crush Bavarian ambitions in a quick and decisive campaign.




[1]Despite the designations of “kingdoms” in the game for states of the Holy Roman Empire, kingdoms were not permitted in the order. The Electors of Brandenburg elevated their entire domain -- Prussia, as a kingdom under the title "King in Prussia," for its contributions in the Spanish-War of Succession, 1701-1714, which permitted by the emperor. The March of Brandenburg remained part of the empire (but was not a kingdom), while the over all entity of Prussia was not part of the H.R.E. Therefore, to reflect the historicity of the political composition of the Holy Roman Empire, the kingdoms will be referred to as duchies, as many of them historically were. The Kingdom of Bohemia was a kingdom, but was incorporated into the Habsburg Monarchy historically, and was the only permanent and legal kingdom in the empire. The historic German kingdoms: Bavaria, Saxony, Wurttemburg, etc. do not come into being until the dissolution of the H.R.E. in 1806.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I feel that a prolonged period of peace will be the exception.

Prolonged peace is an anomaly for Austria. It just doesn't exist...

Hey, there are those entangling matrimonial ties! That was awfully fast.

And even more to come! ;)

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.

Hey LanMisa, nice to see you over here. Well, the footnote specifies what you said. :p 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 a shame that this feature of imperial politics was not incorporated into the game by Paradox, but it's not a severe killer.
 
Last edited:
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!
 
Hardly a true hegemon, if one has to fight for it. ;)

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:

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!

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!"
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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. :eek:
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
The update will be on the next page/post, since this is post 60, and don't want you all to transfer pages to read it.