-
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.
I know, but my keyboard just doesn't have any easy way of placing accents and other such marks.
Re: Re: What does 1419 mean?
The Treaty of Troyes is due up in less than two years' time. Neither the AI nor a human player is going to have the time or the resources to avoid that happening....especially since the French army was mostly annihilated five years ago at Agincourt. Frankly I doubt this war will last long enough for Jeanne Darc to make an appearance, if a human is playing England.
The Treaty of Troyes is due up in less than two years' time. Neither the AI nor a human player is going to have the time or the resources to avoid that happening....especially since the French army was mostly annihilated five years ago at Agincourt. Frankly I doubt this war will last long enough for Jeanne Darc to make an appearance, if a human is playing England.
Re: Re: What does 1419 mean?
By the end of 1419 Henry V had come within a few miles of Paris at Poissy and by the end of 1420 he had married Katherine and had entered Paris (December 1st) with the crown of France to go to him (and his heirs) upon the death of Charles VI.
By the end of 1419 Henry V had come within a few miles of Paris at Poissy and by the end of 1420 he had married Katherine and had entered Paris (December 1st) with the crown of France to go to him (and his heirs) upon the death of Charles VI.
Re: Re: Re: What does 1419 mean?
While that's true, that's still nowhere near the impression a lot of people seem to have about extent of English control of northern France at the beginning of 1419. Virtually every post I've read talks about how the English will own northern France to the Loire valley, which simply isn't the case on 1 January 1419, when the English haven't even taken Rouen or totally conquered Normandy. Sure, given the fact that Henry V will likely have monster stats, it's likely that things will go poorly for the French early on, but it doesn't mean that things are totally hopeless. An astute player may even manage to keep Burgundy neutral or even on the French side, despite the dramatic drop in relations due to the assassination of the Duke in 1419. Let's see how well the English do in France without their Burgundian friends; after all, after the Peace of Arras in 1435, the English position completely collapsed when Burgundy abandoned them. The French may even be able to get their act together and send a superior force after Henry, and anyway, Henry will be dead and gone after 1422. If the English don't press their three-year advantage using Henry, they may very well do a lot worse in France than they did in reality.
While that's true, that's still nowhere near the impression a lot of people seem to have about extent of English control of northern France at the beginning of 1419. Virtually every post I've read talks about how the English will own northern France to the Loire valley, which simply isn't the case on 1 January 1419, when the English haven't even taken Rouen or totally conquered Normandy. Sure, given the fact that Henry V will likely have monster stats, it's likely that things will go poorly for the French early on, but it doesn't mean that things are totally hopeless. An astute player may even manage to keep Burgundy neutral or even on the French side, despite the dramatic drop in relations due to the assassination of the Duke in 1419. Let's see how well the English do in France without their Burgundian friends; after all, after the Peace of Arras in 1435, the English position completely collapsed when Burgundy abandoned them. The French may even be able to get their act together and send a superior force after Henry, and anyway, Henry will be dead and gone after 1422. If the English don't press their three-year advantage using Henry, they may very well do a lot worse in France than they did in reality.
Assuming monarch life spans are handled like EU1 (to real life dates), Henry V is not going to be around for long.
the war of the Armagnacs and the Bourguignons
Burgundy neutral? quite problematic....and England can take full advantage of the french political situation.
The civil war between the Armagnacs (party of the Dauphin Charles d'Orléans) and the Bourguignons led by Jean sans Peur, duke of Bourgogne, had been raging since 1407, when Jean sans Peur had ordered the assassination of Louis d'Orléans (brother to the king Charles VI le Fou). Duke Jean then took control of Paris, which he would lose in 1413 to the Armagnacs.
Then Henry V landed in Normandy and destroyed the Armagnacs at A....I forgot the name.
In 1418, the Armagnacs lost control of Paris to the Bourguignons. The Dauphin Charles escaped, took the regency and resumed the fight against the English with the remnants of the Armagnacs.
Then came the year 1419.
Rouen fell to Henry V.
In september 1419, the Dauphin met Duke Jean, trying a reconciliation, but the Duke Jean is murdered by...nobody knows...
Then Philippe le Bon, son of Duke Jean, turned himself to the english King.
In 1420, it's the treaty of Troyes, denying the Dauphin his rights over the throne of France..
Well I dont know what Paradox will make of this...
France in civil war, while at war against England and an independent Bourgogne
France at war against England her vassal Bourgogne?
France at war against her vassal Bourgogne and England???
Do we start 1 january 1419 or 18 september 1419 (assassination of Jean)
and there's the rest of the world....
Burgundy neutral? quite problematic....and England can take full advantage of the french political situation.
The civil war between the Armagnacs (party of the Dauphin Charles d'Orléans) and the Bourguignons led by Jean sans Peur, duke of Bourgogne, had been raging since 1407, when Jean sans Peur had ordered the assassination of Louis d'Orléans (brother to the king Charles VI le Fou). Duke Jean then took control of Paris, which he would lose in 1413 to the Armagnacs.
Then Henry V landed in Normandy and destroyed the Armagnacs at A....I forgot the name.
In 1418, the Armagnacs lost control of Paris to the Bourguignons. The Dauphin Charles escaped, took the regency and resumed the fight against the English with the remnants of the Armagnacs.
Then came the year 1419.
Rouen fell to Henry V.
In september 1419, the Dauphin met Duke Jean, trying a reconciliation, but the Duke Jean is murdered by...nobody knows...
Then Philippe le Bon, son of Duke Jean, turned himself to the english King.
In 1420, it's the treaty of Troyes, denying the Dauphin his rights over the throne of France..
Well I dont know what Paradox will make of this...
France in civil war, while at war against England and an independent Bourgogne
France at war against England her vassal Bourgogne?
France at war against her vassal Bourgogne and England???
Do we start 1 january 1419 or 18 september 1419 (assassination of Jean)
and there's the rest of the world....
Re: Re: Re: Re: What does 1419 mean?
Even before the Burgundians sided with the English Henry V has almost all of Normandy under his control (I think only Castle Gaillard was holding out north of Rouen). So the English (Henry V) did quite well on his own - of course having the dauphinist and the Burgundians at each others throats helped him along - but they in no way gave direct help to him until the end of 1419. After 1422 the situation changes drastically and I assume that the English leaders will be piss poor after that time, but France better be on their toes the first couple of years in the game.
Even before the Burgundians sided with the English Henry V has almost all of Normandy under his control (I think only Castle Gaillard was holding out north of Rouen). So the English (Henry V) did quite well on his own - of course having the dauphinist and the Burgundians at each others throats helped him along - but they in no way gave direct help to him until the end of 1419. After 1422 the situation changes drastically and I assume that the English leaders will be piss poor after that time, but France better be on their toes the first couple of years in the game.
they will still have Bedford and Talbot...but IMO it's more a case of France being extremely weak than England being strong.
Re: the war of the Armagnacs and the Bourguignons
Well, I didn't say that Burgundy being neutral or friendly to France was going to be easy, but it should be possible for an astute player who does his best to keep Burgundy friendly with France.
Well, I didn't say that Burgundy being neutral or friendly to France was going to be easy, but it should be possible for an astute player who does his best to keep Burgundy friendly with France.
Re: Re: the war of the Armagnacs and the Bourguignons
My point exactly: it was after all what the Dauphin was trying to do at Montereau....but Jean was murdered and the blame put on the Dauphin...and he finally succeeded to reconcile with Philippe at Arras in 1435.
What I mean precisely is that the Monterau meeting is a key evenment of 1419: it is not unreasonable to suppose that the english could have been accused of the murder for instance, or that no murder attempt took place. The political alignement of Bourgogne is decisevely influenced by what happens at Montereau....and with it, the course of the war
My point exactly: it was after all what the Dauphin was trying to do at Montereau....but Jean was murdered and the blame put on the Dauphin...and he finally succeeded to reconcile with Philippe at Arras in 1435.
What I mean precisely is that the Monterau meeting is a key evenment of 1419: it is not unreasonable to suppose that the english could have been accused of the murder for instance, or that no murder attempt took place. The political alignement of Bourgogne is decisevely influenced by what happens at Montereau....and with it, the course of the war