Hi everybody,
I would like to talk about a problem concerning declaration of wars. I've seen in the AAR of the CG, and it's the same thing in the BG, that you can declare war against anybody with no casus belli (official justification). You only lose stability.
Isn't anybody surprised by that kind of declaration ? In the classical age, it doesn't seem to me that a monarch would declare war against someone with no casus belli. Of course, the casus belli would have been sometimes only a pretext, and the real reason would have been annexation or something else. But all the sovereigns would have done anything to have a casus belli. Because, in these times, the diplomatic ideology was very different than ours. A sovereign with non legitimacy to attack another or to pretend to rule some of its provinces would have risked to be contested (by his population, aristocracy or by the other powers). He would have been perceived as some kind of anarchist by the other kings, whether kings always worried so much about order and legitimacy (their power depends on it). 'If you don't respect legitimacy, what can be respected' would have said other kings.
Today, the legitimacy is also very important, even if realpolitik has invaded diplomatic thinking. We can deal with s/o who don't respect legitimacy, because we have learnt how to live with amoral people, we live with them and sometimes we are one of them (I can't hide ;-) ). Moreover realpolitik doesn't exclude casus belli. The difference between today and classical age to my sense is that the casus belli in the 150 last years are sometimes really more cynical (remember the casus belli of Hitler to attack Poland in 39: an attack made by some of his men disguised in polish soldiers against a german frontier post, if I remember well).
I think realpolitk would have been an anachronism in the modern age. The closest ideology to realpolitik is machiavelism (and the princes who applied it, Borja or Sforza in Italy) : if you have a look at 'the prince', it is said that you have to simulate having a legitimate reason to attack. I've got one other example : it's Frederick the Great, who attacked sometimes with very contestable casus belli (in the Seven Years war he claimed for some parts of Silesia with very contestable reasons - this is also recollection, so I can have a little edformed History).
So if someone can give me examples of wars made with no casus belli in the game period, even if CB were not the real reason, I'm interested in. Because I'm not sure at all that it happened. Also, to my opinion, if it happened sometimes, it didn't happen in most cases, and was more exception than rule.
Now I know that the game can not deal with some CB. But couldn't the concept of casus belli be extended to include most of the historical ones ? Dynastic ones were the most importants and the game can deal with them. Also true about religious, alliance matters. The concept would have to be really extended, so that wars can occur frequently.
I must also explain that I had this idea when I read the AAR, or see people playing the BG. Some of them only acts like provinces devourers. I can understand that some people like it, everybody plays like he wants of course, but this is not my conception of historical games. Maybe something like an option between mandatory and optional CB (if possible) would be great ! Everybody would then have the freedom to behave the way he wants to.
I've also seen some BG players in others forums that also dislike this devoring behaviour.
This is only a opened debate for EU II, as I think this kind of concept can't be changed now in the next to be released one... and maybe I would be the only one who want it.
Thanks for all answers. And I hope this problem is not too abstract or philosophical.
God ! What a long message. I hope someone will read it all
Raf
I would like to talk about a problem concerning declaration of wars. I've seen in the AAR of the CG, and it's the same thing in the BG, that you can declare war against anybody with no casus belli (official justification). You only lose stability.
Isn't anybody surprised by that kind of declaration ? In the classical age, it doesn't seem to me that a monarch would declare war against someone with no casus belli. Of course, the casus belli would have been sometimes only a pretext, and the real reason would have been annexation or something else. But all the sovereigns would have done anything to have a casus belli. Because, in these times, the diplomatic ideology was very different than ours. A sovereign with non legitimacy to attack another or to pretend to rule some of its provinces would have risked to be contested (by his population, aristocracy or by the other powers). He would have been perceived as some kind of anarchist by the other kings, whether kings always worried so much about order and legitimacy (their power depends on it). 'If you don't respect legitimacy, what can be respected' would have said other kings.
Today, the legitimacy is also very important, even if realpolitik has invaded diplomatic thinking. We can deal with s/o who don't respect legitimacy, because we have learnt how to live with amoral people, we live with them and sometimes we are one of them (I can't hide ;-) ). Moreover realpolitik doesn't exclude casus belli. The difference between today and classical age to my sense is that the casus belli in the 150 last years are sometimes really more cynical (remember the casus belli of Hitler to attack Poland in 39: an attack made by some of his men disguised in polish soldiers against a german frontier post, if I remember well).
I think realpolitk would have been an anachronism in the modern age. The closest ideology to realpolitik is machiavelism (and the princes who applied it, Borja or Sforza in Italy) : if you have a look at 'the prince', it is said that you have to simulate having a legitimate reason to attack. I've got one other example : it's Frederick the Great, who attacked sometimes with very contestable casus belli (in the Seven Years war he claimed for some parts of Silesia with very contestable reasons - this is also recollection, so I can have a little edformed History).
So if someone can give me examples of wars made with no casus belli in the game period, even if CB were not the real reason, I'm interested in. Because I'm not sure at all that it happened. Also, to my opinion, if it happened sometimes, it didn't happen in most cases, and was more exception than rule.
Now I know that the game can not deal with some CB. But couldn't the concept of casus belli be extended to include most of the historical ones ? Dynastic ones were the most importants and the game can deal with them. Also true about religious, alliance matters. The concept would have to be really extended, so that wars can occur frequently.
I must also explain that I had this idea when I read the AAR, or see people playing the BG. Some of them only acts like provinces devourers. I can understand that some people like it, everybody plays like he wants of course, but this is not my conception of historical games. Maybe something like an option between mandatory and optional CB (if possible) would be great ! Everybody would then have the freedom to behave the way he wants to.
I've also seen some BG players in others forums that also dislike this devoring behaviour.
This is only a opened debate for EU II, as I think this kind of concept can't be changed now in the next to be released one... and maybe I would be the only one who want it.
Thanks for all answers. And I hope this problem is not too abstract or philosophical.
God ! What a long message. I hope someone will read it all
Raf
