What were the justifications for war and conquests of territories in real life?
- Thread starter Kezzykezz
- Start date
-
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.
But that sentence loses it's meaning if France occupy whole byzantium (at it's largest extent in the east). then they would more likely fabricate a claim to the entire naples region instead of just taking napoli, then another province just to create the duchy and THEN take the rest of the duchy by de jure war, but all in seperate wars. That is a bit unrealistic no?
They would more likely just take whole of naples, if they could, instead of just settle for a single province/county
Last edited:
Unless they had a claim on the whole region, nope. Expansion in this time period - or, at least, up to the very end - was extremely slow. People get blinded by Ottomans and Manchu, but then fail to notice that the Big Blue Blob gained a dozen or so provinces in 300 years. In EU4 terms, most wars ended up with either personal unions, or one-two provinces changing hands.
Sweden gained a lot in relatively few wars (Baltic lands particularly). To me, justifications are more about not upsetting the regional power balance (aggressive expansion) and convincing local nobility/authority that this war is in their interest (stability hit for best casus belli unless you have a valid reason for the war).
Religion, economy, and power projection were all reasons for going to war; going back to the Swedish example, we got involved in the 30 years war because the king wanted to protect the protestants of Germany and because he wanted to impede Habsburgian expansion into the baltic seas. The Swedish holdings in Pomerania (I forget when this was) were of interest to the Crown solely because of the tolls we could exact on ships.
Of course, there is a bunch of dynastic reasons as well, but mostly it was about 'my religion is better than yours', 'this would be profitable to us', or 'this is my land now because I wants it (just look at Charles the Bold of Burgundy)'. At least from what I've read.
Religion, economy, and power projection were all reasons for going to war; going back to the Swedish example, we got involved in the 30 years war because the king wanted to protect the protestants of Germany and because he wanted to impede Habsburgian expansion into the baltic seas. The Swedish holdings in Pomerania (I forget when this was) were of interest to the Crown solely because of the tolls we could exact on ships.
Of course, there is a bunch of dynastic reasons as well, but mostly it was about 'my religion is better than yours', 'this would be profitable to us', or 'this is my land now because I wants it (just look at Charles the Bold of Burgundy)'. At least from what I've read.
In feudal Europe "claims fabrication" really happened many times - for example, Teutonic Order fabricated a document, supposedly signed by Mazovian duke in early XII century, which granted the Order the rights to all lands conquered from pagans in Prussia. In reality, that duke (somewhat naively) believed that noble and pious crusader monks will give him all the land they will "free" from pagan rule. After the duke died, Teutonic Order used that forged document to justify constant expansion in the Baltics, and thus Polish-Teutonic feud started. Later, even more bold move by the Order happened in 1306 - Polish duke was busy in other part of the country, when suddenly Brandenburgians invaded and besieged Gdańsk (Danzig), and that duke paid many to The Teutonic Order to chase Brandenburgians away (basically, in gameplay terms, he rented condottieri). Teutons did chase Brandenburgians away, and afterwards laid siege to Gdańsk themselves, took the city and slaughtered the inhabitants. So, in some instances they didin't bother with claims...
On average, medieval Europe was very concerned with justified ownership of land - but, there was a legal concept of "right of conquest" - meaning that if you conquered land by force, it is yours, and it's legal ! Basically, in medieval period, inheritance and conquest were the most important ways to acquire new lands. That's why burgundian inheritance is such a vital event - there was no true separation between a private property of a ruler and a state as a legal concept, so you could inherit a country, which is unthinkable today. It was changing towards the end of middle ages, and in XIV century a concept of "Crown" started to be very important - "Crown" meaning all lands, laws etc. associated with a title of a king. Thus, you can hear of "Lands of Bohemian Crown", or Aragonian Crown etc. Thus, if it was commonly beleived that some land was rightfully part of that crown, and in reality was in somebody elses hands, it was a good casus belli.
Basically, it was the matter of international law - with time, it became more and more refined, and stabilty was greater and more valued - in CK2 period there is a concept of adventurers, and it really happeden that some guy just took his private army, invaded somthing and started a new state (like Norman Sicily). In EU4 period such things were not happening anymore.
Other continents is another thing altogether - Europe was really divided into small "provinces" like in EU4 or Ck2, with rights and privileges attached to them, and complicated system of feudal vassalage. In India and China, things were not based on clearly defined territorial entities, to which rulers had some legal rights - it was more prestige based in Asia, and it didn't really matter what land or culture some ruler is governing, his dynasty's prestige was most important - that's why you have countries like Bahmanis or Timurids there, and in Europe you play France and not Valois, or Poland and not Jagiellons (an exception would be Habsburgs).
On average, medieval Europe was very concerned with justified ownership of land - but, there was a legal concept of "right of conquest" - meaning that if you conquered land by force, it is yours, and it's legal ! Basically, in medieval period, inheritance and conquest were the most important ways to acquire new lands. That's why burgundian inheritance is such a vital event - there was no true separation between a private property of a ruler and a state as a legal concept, so you could inherit a country, which is unthinkable today. It was changing towards the end of middle ages, and in XIV century a concept of "Crown" started to be very important - "Crown" meaning all lands, laws etc. associated with a title of a king. Thus, you can hear of "Lands of Bohemian Crown", or Aragonian Crown etc. Thus, if it was commonly beleived that some land was rightfully part of that crown, and in reality was in somebody elses hands, it was a good casus belli.
Basically, it was the matter of international law - with time, it became more and more refined, and stabilty was greater and more valued - in CK2 period there is a concept of adventurers, and it really happeden that some guy just took his private army, invaded somthing and started a new state (like Norman Sicily). In EU4 period such things were not happening anymore.
Other continents is another thing altogether - Europe was really divided into small "provinces" like in EU4 or Ck2, with rights and privileges attached to them, and complicated system of feudal vassalage. In India and China, things were not based on clearly defined territorial entities, to which rulers had some legal rights - it was more prestige based in Asia, and it didn't really matter what land or culture some ruler is governing, his dynasty's prestige was most important - that's why you have countries like Bahmanis or Timurids there, and in Europe you play France and not Valois, or Poland and not Jagiellons (an exception would be Habsburgs).
As for feodality, it was a link between two people on a given piece of land, and it was far more complex that in CK2 (or EU4) as a given man (or woman but it was rare) holding several pieces of land could have different overlords.
Just to give an example, the count of Toulouse in the 1200s owned most of southern France ... and had four different overlords:
_ his main title (Toulouse) was depending of the King of France
_ he had lands in Provence, and was depending for them of the Emperor of the HRE
_ he had lands in British Guyenne, and was then depending for them of the Duc of Aquitaine (who was actually the King of England, and who was the vassal for the duchy of Aquitaine of the King of France)
_ some part of Southern France were actually depending of the Kingdom of Aragon (Rodez, Montpellier, Carcassone) and the count of Toulouse had a part (Rodez at least) so gained a new overlord.
By the way, the overlord at the time of the King of Aragon was the pope itself. That did not stop Pierre of Aragon to fight the crusade sent to Southern France by the pope to clean cathar heresy (actually, to chase local nobles not cleaning it, to be precise).
So basically, each given land could be claimed by several overlords, especially as the ownership may change, and people may change vassals (when the crusade invaded his lands, the count of Toulouse became in fact a vassal of the King of Aragon, but this did not last long as the latter was killed).
Just a mess. And I'm not talking of case were lord A is overlord of lord B for terrain 1 and vassal of lord B for terrain 2. It happens ! Often !
So with such a mess and a good scrib, you can forge every claim you want.
Just to give an example, the count of Toulouse in the 1200s owned most of southern France ... and had four different overlords:
_ his main title (Toulouse) was depending of the King of France
_ he had lands in Provence, and was depending for them of the Emperor of the HRE
_ he had lands in British Guyenne, and was then depending for them of the Duc of Aquitaine (who was actually the King of England, and who was the vassal for the duchy of Aquitaine of the King of France)
_ some part of Southern France were actually depending of the Kingdom of Aragon (Rodez, Montpellier, Carcassone) and the count of Toulouse had a part (Rodez at least) so gained a new overlord.
By the way, the overlord at the time of the King of Aragon was the pope itself. That did not stop Pierre of Aragon to fight the crusade sent to Southern France by the pope to clean cathar heresy (actually, to chase local nobles not cleaning it, to be precise).
So basically, each given land could be claimed by several overlords, especially as the ownership may change, and people may change vassals (when the crusade invaded his lands, the count of Toulouse became in fact a vassal of the King of Aragon, but this did not last long as the latter was killed).
Just a mess. And I'm not talking of case were lord A is overlord of lord B for terrain 1 and vassal of lord B for terrain 2. It happens ! Often !
So with such a mess and a good scrib, you can forge every claim you want.
Also read like the first two chapters of Le Morte De Arthur by Sir Thomas Mallory. King Uther wants to sleep with a duke's wife and she says no, so he goes to his Councillors and says war then? and then they say sure! And then Uther started a war with his Duke. (I believe in EU4 terms it was a "diplomatic insult" CB)
France's diplomat was slap in the face in 1830 and then the Dey of Algiers refuse to apologize, so this is a good official cassus belli for invade noth Africa.
Unofficials reasons was France had debts and dont want pay the Dey and the Algiers was a harbor for pirats/slavery for raid south of France.
Unofficials reasons was France had debts and dont want pay the Dey and the Algiers was a harbor for pirats/slavery for raid south of France.
It was really more prominent in the Middle Ages (by 1444 the English situation was much more complicated, with both sides claiming to be King of France, making "conquests" by either Henry VI or Charles VII officially a matter of reclaiming land from rebellious vassals).
The one that immediately comes to mind was the marriage of John I of England in 1200. His chosen bride was Isabella of Angouleme, who was already betrothed to Hugh of Lusignan, who was one of John's vassals (in John's role as Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and Count of Poitou). Hugh appealed to Philip II of France (who claimed a right to judge the case in his role of King of France, and thus overlord of Normandy, Aquitaine and Poitou, making sure to summon John in his role as Count of Poitou, which had fewer legal rights than John's ducal titles, to say nothing of his status as King of England). John refused Philip's summons, leading to Philip declaring him a rebel, stripping him of his titles in France, and launching a war that ended up with John losing all of Normandy and Poitou by 1204.
Why does any advanced civilization seek to destroy a less advanced one? Because the land is strategically valuable, because there are resources that can be cultivated and exploited, but most of all - simply because they can.
(G'kar, Babylon 5)
Yeah, not exactly the topic but just came to my mind from the discussion.
Justifications for wars differ a lot depending on the audience. And/or who are you justifying it to. A medieval noble is trying to convince their peers of their righteousnes whereas an industrial age leader needs to convince their citizens etc.
(G'kar, Babylon 5)
Yeah, not exactly the topic but just came to my mind from the discussion.
Justifications for wars differ a lot depending on the audience. And/or who are you justifying it to. A medieval noble is trying to convince their peers of their righteousnes whereas an industrial age leader needs to convince their citizens etc.