Mad Renaissance STGOD

[General Havoc]

Duchess, I fully understand the reasons for placing the nations as they are in your list, but the problem is that if you look that list over, you've pre-set every single player-controlled nation into the camp of the Spanish Pope (obviously with the exception of me, Florence/Venice, and the Orthodox and Muslim players). The only nations in the camp of my pope are NPCs. While I accept that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for each of those countries to do so, it basically places me automatically in an unplayable state. If everybody decides they want to support the other pope for whatever reason, that's fine. But to tell all the other players that that's what they historically have to do based on what their NPC rivals are doing, essentially destroys my capacity to have any relations with anyone before the game even begins.

Similarly, Cavalier, while I love that timeline you created for Italy, and accept its tenets for the most part, I'm a little concerned that you created a timeline for my nation without consulting me. It's great stuff, don't get me wrong, but I absolutely cannot play the game with some of those decisions. You have me arbitrarily making a mortal enemy of every Orthodox nation in existence for no reason whatsoever. You have my nation and even my capital city utterly racked with periodic internal strife, and most of the major characters I've started using in my posts placed implacably against the interests of my sovereign. I do not debate the verisimilitude or the depth of this history you have created. It probably holds far more water than my mental one does. But you cannot seriously expect me to start the game in a situation where I have to keep all my armies at home perpetually to stave off massive uprisings, where my control of Constantinople has been compromised by a lunatic religious policy that has guaranteed the perpetual hostility of the every Greek alive, and where my major nobles and senators are all waiting for an excuse to knock off the head of my Empire, and plunge the entirety of Italy into civil war. Nobody else's nations are operating under such conditions.

I'll need a little time to distill the issues I need addressed down into one or two salient points. Once I've done so, I hope we can work them out.

[Simon_Jester]

1) A pleasure to have you with us, Your Grace.

2) I am well content with that historical outline, insofar as it touches on Bohemian history- not very far, but it hits the key points and explains the origins of the Hussite dissent. Havoc might have some comments on the supposed case in 1451 of Roman-pope interactions with Bohemia.

The Hussites, it must be noted have their own internal divisions, on which more below.

And number three:

In fact: All players, do in this thread declare your current papal allegiance and the strength thereof. If you are ecumenically neutral, do so state.

My papal allegiance and the strength thereof:

[Dissonant chorus, bickering voices ensue, incomprehensible babble and sounds of fisticuffs. Leonardo da Vinci invents elaborate gear-riddled difference engine to perform signals analysis. Da Vinci realizes signals analysis hasn't been invented yet. Da Vinci shrugs, invents that too, and gets to work]

After considerable effort, the Bohemian response is disentangled into:
-A large number of Utraquist voices, mostly from the vicinity of Prague, going "if you'd only sit down and talk to us..."
-A large number of Taborite Czech hillbilly voices shouting "DEATH TO THE WHORE OF BABYLON!"
-A modest number of German-speakers going "Help! Help! Save us from the crazy heretics!"

Attempts to inquire which pope the Taborites are calling the Whore of Babylon prove fruitless and confusing, as it's not at all certain they know themselves. The more moderate Utraquists might reconcile with Rome, but almost certainly not with Peniscola. Thing is, they'd only consider reconciling with Rome if Rome conceded things Rome isn't going to concede, so it's a moot point, and they're pretty well content with the status quo.

The remaining Catholics will take whatever they can get and be thankful for it if it makes the Taborites shut up and go away.

[Comrade Tortoise]

I love how you embrace the madness Simon

[General Havoc]

2) I am well content with that historical outline, insofar as it touches on Bohemian history- not very far, but it hits the key points and explains the origins of the Hussite dissent. Havoc might have some comments on the supposed case in 1451 of Roman-pope interactions with Bohemia.

Well, I mean, I'd rather that the negotiations broke down for reasons other than the Roman representatives being stupid, but as long as it doesn't poison present relations before we start, I don't mind overmuch. It's not like the Popes were known for their humility, after all.

[frigidmagi]

I would like to take this moment to note several things.

First off, I mean no offense or insult towards Cavalier or Duchess, who are doing alot of work in creating these timelines and set ups. I do appreciate the desire to create a coherent and sensible historical/political set up and it is not my intent to make them feel unappreciated or put down upon.

That said, no listing containing the Kingdom of Occitania or history posting events internal or wars involving the nation are official or acceptable at this time. I have not been consulted, or in any way informed of these.

As to the history of Occitania, it will be written by myself and those I invite into it. I am aware that it might not mesh with what some feel to be right or most likely. I, in all honesty, while thanking people for their feedback and willing to listen to suggestions, do not really care. I am the one who has to play the nation, so it's persons, history, friendships, enemies and goals will be pleasing to me not any committee. If this is a problem, I can leave and would rather do so then have my nation written and dictated for me.

The official Occitanian position as to the regrettable schism in the one True Church of the Most Holy and Almighty God. As a true Christian nation, Occitanian finds this split in Christendom to be the most soul aching fact of our time. In these times, we pray to the Almighty Sovereign of the Universe to make his will known and to show to his faithful servants his true chosen Vicar on earth. We call upon all heretics to carefully examine their position and beseech them in good Christian fellowship to consider that they may be mistaken. We, await with hope and prayer the reunion of our Blessed Mother the Church and pray for those set in authority over it, that with wisdom, understanding and true Christian Belief that all wounds be healed.

The unofficial Occitanian position is as follows:

A, have you done for us lately?

B, what's in it for the kingdom of Occitania?

C, if I stand with you, will you kill English?

While I am not going to reveal my full intentions or strategic goals, I do think every crowned head, temporal or otherwise, capable of feeding themselves and riding a horse unassisted can determined that the overriding concern of Occitania is the overthrow of the illegitimate rule of Northern France by the thieving Gutterborne Norman English State (this is opposed to the Sicilian Norman State who we have no strong feelings about one way or the other).

Those interested in discussing mutually beneficial lines of fellowship and action should address their diplomats to Royal Palace, Aquitaine, Kingdom of Occitania to King Artus I.

Please note that Occitania is not responsible for any damage suffered in transit to our kingdom nor do we do refunds. Thank you.

[Academia Nut]

Officially, Sicily follows an official stance similar to Occitania, with a somewhat more strongly worded support for the Spanish pope. However, their interests mostly lie in keeping all foreign interests out of waters they consider vital to the protection of their island holdings, so they are mostly supporting the Spanish pope to act as a counter weight to what they see as aggressive Roman expansion. Sufficient incentive could see an alteration to official doctrine though. It would have to be quite hefty though to go through with the internal strife of switching popes after spending several decades decrying the Roman pope as being a pretender and puppet to a mob.

I will try to get some key points to Sicilian history up later today.

[Simon_Jester]

2) I am well content with that historical outline, insofar as it touches on Bohemian history- not very far, but it hits the key points and explains the origins of the Hussite dissent. Havoc might have some comments on the supposed case in 1451 of Roman-pope interactions with Bohemia.

Well, I mean, I'd rather that the negotiations broke down for reasons other than the Roman representatives being stupid, but as long as it doesn't poison present relations before we start, I don't mind overmuch. It's not like the Popes were known for their humility, after all.

They probably did/would break down, but I for one am going to make a habit of assuming anything Italians do in this timeline doesn't fail for lack of political sophistication.

What they'd find at the court of King George of Podebrady (if memory serves) is a state which is pretty damn committed to its heresies (communion in both kinds to the laity, vernacular printing of the Bible in Czech, and a more austere relationship between man and church). They are, in essence, proto-Protestants; the difference is that the movement hasn't spread clear across Europe yet, or not in quantity. Not the way it had by, say, 1530 or 1540.

A Roman church, or a Peniscolan church, which treats them as a regional heresy to be wrestled back into line, though, is going to get a chilly reception. The Bohemians of the 1450s and later are confident enough in their military capability that they'll shrug off attempts at compromise that threaten to place them too far under the umbrella of a church they see as corrupt and hamhandedly oppressive... and that's true of both Rome and Peniscola.

This does not stop the king of Bohemia from treating with Catholic foreigners, so long as said foreigners don't spit on him and go "Heresiarch! Heresiarch!"

[Charon]

The Ottomans obviously have no religious opinion on either Pope, other than to say that they are unfortunately wrong in their belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and their refusal to follow the Seal of the Prophets Mohammad to reaching heaven.

Unofficially, as long as the Roman Pope holds sway in Constantinople we like the Spanish Pope more. Should that change, our opinion on matters may change as well.

For our own religion. We are obviously Sunni. But we don't really go around trying to convert the Orthodox. Never have, likely never will (after all, where will we get our Janissaries from if everybody converts?). We did secret away an Orthodox Patriarch of our own, who we for the most part leave to his own doom saying as long as he doesn't go around saying bad things about the Ottomans.

Gennadios himself is a rather ancient man, but he was extremely popular among the Greeks of Constantinople, mostly because when the Union occurred he was one of the few of the priestly order in Constantinople that spoke out against it. He is violently anti-unionist, anti-Latin, anti-Norman, and believes that the world will come to an end soon.

I know how to pick 'em.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Gennadios himself is a rather ancient man, but he was extremely popular among the Greeks of Constantinople, mostly because when the Union occurred he was one of the few of the priestly order in Constantinople that spoke out against it. He is violently anti-unionist, anti-Latin, anti-Norman, and believes that the world will come to an end soon.

Just so you know, that Union is under contention.

[Charon]

*thumbs up*

I'll hold him in reserve until things get resolved then.

[Cavalier]

We are into the game. And it's been almost a month since this game was mooted, and we are still down histories for a significant portion of the player base. Trying to run a game while no one but the players involved have any idea how their nations came to be or are run is an obvious problem. The history of Italy, like the history of France, or of the Holy Roman Empire, is big enough to affect everyone at the table and so should not be kept shrouded up with only one player knowing it (or making it up on the spot) and thereby having an advantage over others. I saw no sign of histories being forthcoming so I talked with Ben about it and worked out draft outlines for people to comment on, and ideally to use as a basis for fleshing out their national histories.

But as for Havoc's specific comments, I feel obliged to point out that "lunatic religious policy" was put into effect by the Council of Florance in 1439, the Byzantines conceding on all points to gain Western military assistance. It may not make sense to 21st century Western liberals and atheists, but it seems many people in the 15th century were sincere in their religious beliefs. Approaching the opportunity to reunify the Western and Eastern churches on Latin terms from the perspective of a medieval Italian Catholic, the choice is obvious. More so in that the Byzantine Emperor, and his hierarchy of priests and appointed Patriarch are willing to surrender in order to save their city from the Turk. The average Greek of course wishes every barbarian so-called "Roman" would die in a fire, but that will be the same regardless of whether or not a completely ahistorical policy of leaving the Orthodox Church free to teach that Roman Catholics are foul heretics who will burn in Hell is pursued or not. What failing to force the reunion will do, on the other hand, is introduce a severe break between the Vatican and the Senate, and if Rome uses its power to suppress the Pope over an issue of tolerating schism and heresy it will destroy the credibility of its papacy. And that assumes the Senate is made up of people who do not believe in the truth of the Catholic Church and are willing to treat religion in a completely instrumental manner, which Machiavelli aside is utterly alien to the mentality of the times.

As for Italy in general, I will only say that the unification of Italy by force is the only way it can be accomplished. That should not be a controversial point but rather a self-evident axiom. The proud city-states of Italy, not least of all Milan for Christ's sake, are not going to be persuaded that, hey, Rome is super-awesome so you should all give up your independence and serve Rome because we'll hand you shiny titles. The Visconti like being Dukes of Milan very much, thank you, and would like to be Kings of Italy even more. The Venetians have little interest in being a part of the mainland and speak a dialect that resembles Spanish more closely than Italian. The royalty of Naples are descended from the ancient Anjou dynasty and have direct ties with the Kings of Hungary and Aragon, and have no reason to see being demoted to subjects of Rome as a desirable outcome. The Italian peasantry could not care less about the glories of the past, especially when they are being spouted about by well-fed patricians going about in ridiculous togas and holding long monologues in a language they can't decipher. Now some of those conquered cities will harbor people who resent being subordinated, but so what? Rebellions and conspiracies are par for the course in the 15th century, and using force to put them down is a well-established and highly effective remedy used the entire world over.

Worried about revolts while going to war? Well then, invest in some forts and garrisons to hold them down. There's a reason Europe in the 15th century had them plastered over every strategic point on the continent. Concentrating all of your florins on offensive military forces may be an optimal strategy, and we might all like to be able to go to war and conquer other states without having to worry about the security of the homeland, but... too damn bad. It doesn't work that way and it bloody well shouldn't in this game, or it reduces to a one-dimensional strategic battle simulation.

And the fact that Rome has factions is a problem? Well gee, I guess Austria is unplayable too, because there are unprincipled grasping nobles and burghers resentful of centralization there. And in England, and in Hungary, and in Poland, and in Muscovy, and in Spain, and in Portugal, and there damned well should be in Occitania and Sicily. Bohemia has to deal with religious radicals and a major ethnic minority that violently rejects the state religion. The Roman Republic was not notable for political stability, and Rome in the 15th century damned well wasn't, so I fail to see why this Roman Republic should be the only country in the world where the King or Principes or Emperor or Tsar or Doge doesn't have to worry about a knife in the back. The specifics can be filled in by you, using the framework, but proud baronial families who gave Rome Popes and Cardinals and held the city in their grasp for decades are not going to just forget that hey, they're much more illustrious and deserving of power than the upstart Rienzo clan. It should be fodder for domestic plotting rather than a cause for complaining that the timeline doesn't have everyone working together at maximum efficiency for the good of the nation, heedless of their personal self-interest.

[frigidmagi]

Cavalier, if you want to write histories, try speaking to us instead of just posting and demanding that we accept it. Frankly I want to play with you here but if the price is you get to dictate what our histories and internal politics are, it's to high. If you want a role in writing Occitania... Talk to me. I'm open to discussion and the PM box is right bloody there. Otherwise, if you want to dictate the politics and history of my nation, you need to drag yourself over here and play my nation. Because bluntly, I'm flat out not going to go along with this. I joined this game to set up and play a nation I wanted, not one you wanted. I am not going to radically transform it or allow you to dictate what it should or should not be without even a word to me.

[Academia Nut]

Ahem. I feel compelled to comment here in that both sides of this little argument have valid points.

First, we kind of have been failing to properly chat with each other and flesh out the histories. I get the feeling that a lot of people have been talking with Ben and not talking with each other and this has created a snarl that spreads blame out fairly equally.

Second, unilateral history creation is bad no matter who does it, because as mentioned it allows people to grant themselves advantages that may not be warranted or agreed upon by other players. Cavalier, I think the biggest issue here is that when people do unilateral history creation for themselves, that's not as bad as when other people do it for them because not only is it intruding on other people's turf more than self-advantageous history, but it creates the impression that you are trying to arrange other people's affairs for your own benefit, which looks kind of bad.

Third, I think it is implied that most groups have their own internal factions and strife, it is just that even more than regular ahistorical material, creating an internal nemesis takes a lot of thought that many of us probably have not had the energy to think up quite yet. Again, assigning internal factions to other people is kind of stepping on their toes.

Anyway, that is my thoughts on the matter, which basically sum up to "We should probably talk with each other more to avoid toe stepping."

[Hotfoot]

I hereby dictate that you all are playing rogue nations based on pizza delivery chains that grew up during this time period. Cavalier, you are Dominos.

There, done.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Hotfoot, Thou Shalt Not Troll.

[Simon_Jester]

I for one am just plain short on mental energy and time, but to do a quick summing up:

Yes, the Bohemians of 1478 are basically directly descended from the direction the Hussites were going up until the Utraquists (in real life) accepted reunion with the Catholic Church in exchange for a few concessions and threw their weight against the more radical Taborite faction. Historically, the Hussites proved fairly capable of defending their core territory against various crusades and invasions that tried to bring them back into the fold, so I figure if they hadn't been politicked into submission there's a good chance they'd still be around.

The way I figure it, the overall chaos and schisms and the Avignon papacy running off to Peniscola and both sides of the schism berating each other for corruption and sin has created an atmosphere where the Bohemians never really needed to accept something like the historical reabsorption into the Catholic Church. Neither pope has the energy, resources, or political standing to order a large enough crusade to overpower the Bohemians, any more than it could have been done in the 1420s. Everyone has bigger things on their mind.

From the point of view of the Hussites the entire schism has served only to prove that Jan Hus and the other revered founding fathers of the Unity of Brethren were totally right about the Church being corrupt, decadent, and politicized to the point where it cannot credibly claim to stand for God.

They've expanded a bit in a northerly direction, partly by force and partly by honest conversion of the populace- by this point in history we're only about one or two generations removed from the Protestant Reformation. Many of the social forces that made the Reformation happen are already in play on the ground and will only be accelerated by the weakness of the Catholic Church and the uptick in trade and ideas flowing around that this version of the game has even relative to real life.

Anyway.

The government of Bohemia shook itself out into something organized under George of Podebrady during the... 1440s and 1450s, I think; George was elected king some time during that time frame, there being no living man with a claim to the Bohemian throne that the Hussites among the nobility would honor. Much time and effort was spent consolidating, spreading, and 'normalizing' the Hussite faith through the core territory of Bohemia, reconciling the more diehard Catholics among the Czechs (at least) to the idea. Thirty or forty years later, this has mostly paid off, though of course there are still secret Catholics around just as there were in Elizabethan England.

George died a few years before game start and was succeeded by his son Victor. George and Victor have both spent a lot of effort balancing off the religious factions. The Utraquists (named, symbolically, for the chalice that represents the Hussite practice of communion in both kinds given to the laity) are more numerous and stronger in and around the capital of Prague, but the Taborites are more militarily mobilized and can often strongarm people into going along with their more radical ideas of What Is To Be Done.

Theological dispute is routine and widespread through Hussite areas, as it was among the sectarian conflicts of early Protestantism in general, and the Unitas Fratrum isn't all that united in reality. They just all agree they don't want to put up with a pope, or with foreign-appointed bishops, or with all the ceremonies being held in foreign gibberish, or with indulgence peddlers sponging their money and pretending to be able to get Grandpa out of Purgatory.

I know this is only broad outlines, but it's the best I can do right now.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Upon consultation: The cost for increasing Economy and Connectivity has increased. Also, the rules for increasing Art and Technology have been more clearly explained.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Anyone sending envoys to NPC states, PM the list of nations and proposed treaty terms.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Errata updated:

Ships have been re-statted so that things less than galleon size are not irrelevant. Carrack attack value increased to 38, galleon attack value decreased to 40

[Charon]

*wakes up from Skyrim induced coma*

In terms of Ottoman history. I'll get it up in a week or so but up until 1444 it will remain pretty much the same.

[frigidmagi]

CT, diplomatic immunity wasn't developed until the 17th century. Hell in 1538 the King of France threatened to whip Henry VIII's ambassador... With a Halberd! For that matter even in the later centuries it wasn't set in stone Napleon imprisoned enemy diplomats on a regular basis. This is one of the reasons why it was traditional to use church officials who were much more protected by the law back then (I have no idea if that would hold true in our schism happy timeline).

For that matter I point out Richard III imprisonment by a man who was nominally his ally! Additionally, you declare that I have done this without ransom when that line hasn't even been discussed, you sir are throwing in things that aren't there.

I protest your attempts to paint my immersion of your diplomat coming to demand my surrender as anything out of the ordinary and call for a change.

[Comrade Tortoise]

No no. It is not out of the ordinary. But it IS against the laws of chivalry. Violated all over the place, and in every way imaginable, but every time it happens the aggrieved party was outraged, even if they did the same thing two weeks later.

Chivalry and hypocrisy pretty much go hand in hand.

[Comrade Tortoise]

God damn it. Lost a giant ass post I have been working on for days. FFFFUUUUUUUUUU!