Why are Austria and France historic rivals?

  • 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.
Well it had many lairs. FIrst of all France before RIchelieu and after are actually important for the picture. Prior to his plan of natural borders, France was fighting only Spain and the Italians, mostly for milan. But at the same time protestant had control of 30 percent of the country and was a state in the state. SO you had political problems, rising taxes a big protestant minority with power and a court wich fought itself. So there was not really a plan here.
After Richelieu the natural borders of France where defiend. The Rhine in the easts, the sea in the west, the channel in the north, Savoie to Italy and the Pyrenees towards Spain (Rousillion). The land was also mostly satisfied, the protestant destroyed and expulsed or converted. (Some stayed but too few to matter). The peasants and nobles where also dealt with. But at the same time the war cost rose and rose and so did the taxes. But Louis the XIV. had not yet those Problems, and did his best to achieve those borders actually his sucessor managed to achieve it shortly after his passing. By then the French had basicially bankrupted themselves though (the american wars where too much) and with Louis the XVIII it was over. The only reason why they did not loose anything after Waterloo was the Russians who wanted a stable monarchy in France and a counterbalance to Austria.
If not those gains would have been set back and probaly withouth revanchism (why funnily enough the French still had). (Before Leibzig Autria actually offered up the Rhine border to Napoleon ^^ those traitors xd)
The involment in the 30 years War was to offset the Habsburg control of the Reich wich was on the brink of being sucessfull and only with Gustav Adoplhus did the protestant side pick up momentum. The stalement late on was actually best case scenario for France, as a too strong Sweden would also be dangerous for them.
Maybe have an event with RIchelieu to give France blue claims on the Rhineborder ^^ would be a nice touch I guess.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
In reality, the Pyrenees were an impassable barrier for conquest to both the Spanish and the French. So French territorial ambitions lay in the conquest of the low countries, northern Italy, and the Rhineland, both of which were Austrian territory due to being part of the HRE. Austria is protecting the primary expansion route of France. They shouldn't be proper allies.

Later on, when Spain become part of the Hapsburg empire, it meant that France was surrounded by the Hapsburgs, and French foreign policy oriented itself specifically to oppose them. This would have probably happened sooner or later anyways, as the Hapsburgs were the primary source in thwarting French expansionism in various coalitions.

Remember that France, a catholic country, supported the protestant side of the 30 year's war specifically because they were fighting Hapsburgs.
Back in the days of the schmaldick league, Francis I supported the protestants of Germany against Charles I, so cardinal richeleiu (who is seen as one of the first to do realpolitik) wasn't too abnormal. The Hapsburgs seemed to be on the verge of victory, hence why they revoked the edicts of tolerance, which dragged others like Sweden in, and possible centralisation of the hre would be a great threat indeed.

As well as the Bourbons coming to the throne as protestants, Louis XIV at least would patronise Gallicianism instead of mainstream Catholicism and so could justify entering unholy allainces once more.
 
Austria and France allying was so common it was annoying in the past, and you even had the rare case of France PU-ing Austria, which just ruined the game even more. Paradox adding the historical rivalry fixed that immediately.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Historical Rivals are mostly done for the 1444 startdate.

They can be modified for later startdates and they can be modified with events and such.

I am personally still interested in seeing Poland, Hungary and Bohemia having a potential friendship and removing their historical rival status. (REMEMBER: they just fought a war as a coalition together in the Crusade of Varna against the Ottomans)

But the problem with that is the Eastern hugbox.

So in some of my mods I added a clause that Hungary and Poland rival eachother when Poland gets into a Personal Union with Lithuania or Hungary a personal union with Austria.
 
Historical Rivals are mostly done for the 1444 startdate.

They can be modified for later startdates and they can be modified with events and such.

I am personally still interested in seeing Poland, Hungary and Bohemia having a potential friendship and removing their historical rival status. (REMEMBER: they just fought a war as a coalition together in the Crusade of Varna against the Ottomans)

But the problem with that is the Eastern hugbox.

So in some of my mods I added a clause that Hungary and Poland rival eachother when Poland gets into a Personal Union with Lithuania or Hungary a personal union with Austria.
When did Poland Hungary and Bohemia have historical rivalries?
If Bohemia prioritised PUing over conquering Hungary, and didn't have the mission to conquer Slovakia that'd be alot better for Eastern Europe to flow more historically
 
  • 1
Reactions:
When did Poland Hungary and Bohemia have historical rivalries?
If Bohemia prioritised PUing over conquering Hungary, and didn't have the mission to conquer Slovakia that'd be alot better for Eastern Europe to flow more historically

The aftermath of Varna was quite complex. Rivalry is a strong term to refer to the situation but does model well how the game should handle it.

There was quite a bit of conflict between various rulers for all kinds of reasons. George Podebrady and his defacto rule as a Hussite Regent and King.
Matthias Corvinus fighting with both the Austrians, Bohemians. And after Podebrady died, there was of course the war over the Bohemian Succession between the Polish candidate and Matthias.

After all that they came under a single union again, until they were defeated by the ottomans.
 
The aftermath of Varna was quite complex. Rivalry is a strong term to refer to the situation but does model well how the game should handle it.

There was quite a bit of conflict between various rulers for all kinds of reasons. George Podebrady and his defacto rule as a Hussite Regent and King.
Matthias Corvinus fighting with both the Austrians, Bohemians. And after Podebrady died, there was of course the war over the Bohemian Succession between the Polish candidate and Matthias.

After all that they came under a single union again, until they were defeated by the ottomans.
I meant as in in game. I've got a decent amount of understanding for Sigismund's afterbirth
 
Nope:
rivals.png

( https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Relations )

That list is really out of date.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Nope: View attachment 655122
( https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Relations )

I would guess that France and England/GB aren't historical rivals so that getting that PU as England is an actual reward. Although it's possible to change that status during a campaign (like Sweden and Denmark, via event), so it would be possible add the modifier, but let it be removable, for example via mission reward, so that AI England and AI France are guaranteed to remain hostile throughout the game.
The way I see it, historical rivalry is a mechanic meant to simulate antagonizing relationships where normal mechanics can't, but in the FRA-ENG situation the game actually can, as England holds many French cores, so it's not as necessary.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Before the end of the 19th century, France archenemy is GB/England. But there was a big rivalry with Habpsburg too.

I think historical rival is to force AI to mess up with some nation, this force Ottoman to kill byz same with muscovy and novgorod. I think it's more for game balance and railroading a little bit. France is suposed to attack the HRE, not ally the emperor and protect it. (Sure if Austria isn't the emperor it can hapen but usually Austria is the emperor).

Same with the historical modifier (keep lithuania under poland, avoid portugal being annexed by castille...)
 
Before the end of the 19th century, France archenemy is GB/England. But there was a big rivalry with Habpsburg too.

I think historical rival is to force AI to mess up with some nation, this force Ottoman to kill byz same with muscovy and novgorod. I think it's more for game balance and railroading a little bit. France is suposed to attack the HRE, not ally the emperor and protect it. (Sure if Austria isn't the emperor it can hapen but usually Austria is the emperor).

Same with the historical modifier (keep lithuania under poland, avoid portugal being annexed by castille...)

That’s all wonderful but it flies in the face of the game philosophy put forward by the devs and much of the membership of this forum. It railroads the player and AI when we’ve read time and again that this is a sandbox game with historical parameters.

To your point: Austria and France could be Protestant states with Bohemia as the Emperor. It could be in both of their interests to weaken Bohemia but they cannot form an alliance because of a lazy modifier, even if they’ve managed to reached a relationship in the +100s with a royal marriage and a shared rival.

These modifiers should either A) Decay or B) Be removable through a clearly defined diplomacy (as in I can figure this out within the game UI).
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
That’s all wonderful but it flies in the face of the game philosophy put forward by the devs and much of the membership of this forum.
Eh.. a large number of players role-play a fair amount. So 'historical rivals' diplomacy modifiers can actually help there - so long as they're not badly implemented.
Your point about such modifiers being unresponsive to changing circumstances is a good one though. They are not very adaptable.

Unfortunately some of these modifiers seem to reflect sub-national actors (in my opinion). The Hapsburgs, the House of Valois, and such dynasties are important political players.... which is very Crusader Kings, and not very Europa Universalis.
More Dynastic Politics in EU5 ?
 
Last edited:
I don't think the current state of affairs is wrong. For this simple reason:

Habsburg don't sit on Spain throne at the beginning of the game. There is an event that rises the chance. But it's not 100% a given. Even Spain formation is not 100% given. Regardless the rival mechanic makes so that France always rivals Spain if it forms. And that usually makes convenient for Spain to ally the Emperor to prevent France expansion in rich hre lands, Habsburg or not.

The dinasty game is very barebone in EU4. Yes there is a small opinion bonuses. Yes humans can exploit the claim throne cb (which really is an exploit: no way that cb can be taken seriously when used against a 15 year old 100 legitimate monarch with no sons. Unless he's sterile). But that's nothing close to the game played by the Habsburgs (and other nobles) in Europe.

Historic rivals imho should just be a early game thing. Later the rival mechanic is already enough to shape the game in interesting ways.

Perhaps there could be a "friend" mechanic to reciprocate the rival one on the positive side. A reinforcement of the alliance mechanic. That way you could have Austria-Spain anti France friendship. Ofc friendship should end if the conditions for it disappears (like for rivalries). Like mutual rival, heretic presence in the area, same dynasty or whatever else.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The historic rivalry modifier isn’t really there for historical reasons. It is simply to discourage certain alliances and encourage competition (the opposite goes for the historic friends modifiers). Some of these may be for historical reasons, but generally they are for gameplay reasons.

France and England don’t need one becuase their starting situation and events pretty much guarantee early wars achieving the same goal.

The historic friendship modifier between Castille and Portugal, probably the one of these that has recieved the most attention on this board, is there basically to prevent Castille from just rolling over Portugal early on in most games even though there is no historical justification for it.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
The historic rivalry modifier isn’t really there for historical reasons. It is simply to discourage certain alliances and encourage competition (the opposite goes for the historic friends modifiers). Some of these may be for historical reasons, but generally they are for gameplay reasons.

I think most respondents aren’t quibbling with this per se. it’s more the matter that it reflects the state of the game in 1444 - things can change quite significantly, even with the first 50+ years. Hamstringing players (and AI alike) for the rest of the game is what doesn’t make sense.
 
The historic friendship modifier between Castille and Portugal, probably the one of these that has recieved the most attention on this board, is there basically to prevent Castille from just rolling over Portugal early on in most games even though there is no historical justification for it.

Yep 15% trade efficiency really does not do any favours vs 15% morale on the battlefield. Aparently I cant just wack them with money bags xD
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yep 15% trade efficiency really does not do any favours vs 15% morale on the battlefield. Aparently I cant just wack them with money bags xD
Swapping back to a Fort every province would help stop castile conquering, as the manpower burn would just not be economic. But the ideas are that Portugal is able to swarm with mercs and make up with manpower what they lack in quality, even if its ahistoric