Talk:Second Europe 1430 (Map Game)

Hansa-Teuton
This makes no sense. There was no centralised leadership for the Hanseatic League, and it was on the decline at this point. Plus the Teutonic Knights opposed the leadership of the middle class. Pretty much every nation hanseatic cities were in at this time would have opposed this. A more centralised Hanseatic State could have been created out of Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck, but the eastern cities couldn't have done it, at least not all at once, and the Knights while possibly allying with this Hanseatic state wouldn't have merged with them this early.

See Hanseatic Republic (Sundered Veil) for a realistic take on the establishment of a Hanseatic state. I researched this intensely.Oerwinde 21:01, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, recalled. I'll have the Teutons absorb the Hanseatic League. I'll have a Hanseatic Republic established later on, if possible. Michael Douglas 22:18, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

The Hanseatic league is still very decentralised. It had member cities all over including London, Novgorod, Antwerp, etc. Cities that were part of or the center of large nations. Its more of an alliance than an actual nation, so I don't see the Teutonic Knights absorbing them. Several of the Hanseatic cities were actually Teutonic anyway such as Konigsberg and Danzig.

Here's a map showing all the Hanseatic cities to show how unrealistic it is to hand over Hanseatic territory to the Teutons: https://jspivey.wikispaces.com/file/view/hanseatic_league.jpg/71484255/hanseatic_league.jpg. They're also extremely independent and would resist being absorbed.

Oerwinde 00:16, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Re: New Edit - Since the Teutonic Knights were a monastic state, if they were to be an elector in the HRE one of the Bishopric princes would need to be ejected as an elector as well, either that or a new secular elector would have to be appointed, to ensure no ties in the electoral process for emperor.Oerwinde 00:19, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Ok screw it I likes the Idea but I'll get rid of it for now. Michael Douglas 00:53, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Recent history
A few issues with the recent additions Basically a whole bunch of implausibility.Oerwinde 10:01, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a stalemate and peace talks had begun, the Russians would have to resume hostilities in order to take Pskov, which they hadn't done.
 * Kernow was crushed by England. Wales is still trying to consolidate its hold over Ireland before taking on England and accepting Kernow's fealty would cause war between England and Wales, which Wales doesn't want. This means Kernow's forces are even weaker than before and would be crushed even harder when England takes it over again.
 * Novgorod telling the Kalmar Union that their peace offer is foolish because Muscovy would join them is redundant. The Kalmar Union is already at war with Muscovy and allied with the Knights and HRE.

Yes, recall is imminent. Michael Douglas 21:50, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

From the main page.
Seriously, the main page is not for discussion. Get it through your heads.Oerwinde 09:57, February 16, 2011 (UTC) Do you realize that a lot of users DONT LOOK AT THE TALK PAGE. They just say that somethings is implausible and cant see the counterarguements on the talk page, so no one listens to you. Roguejedi 15:19, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally implausible... I suggest changing it to Rayzan invading Poland-Lithuania if you want to exand it.
 * Do you realize jus how much the war has sapped Muscovy's stregnth. Last year (or two years ago), I said that Muscovy sent in all of the reserves. The country is mostly defencless. The advances wont last, but for now there is nothing stopping Ryazan. Ryazan is comparitivly almost as strong as Muscovy right now. Also, the people in the countries Muscovy invaded would help the invaders. 
 * Yes, but your guerillas are on the totally wrong side of Muscovy. Plus, you decided to mess with two countries, one of which is still stronger then Ryazan right now. Plus, you made implausibly huge land gains in one year. Stretch this out into several years and it will be plausible.
 * The land gains are basicly how far an army can march in one year, with little resitance. the gueralla groups are slowing the return of the soldiers down. The land gains wont last long, just until troops arrive back. 
 * Ryazan was wracked with internal conflicts at this point, mainly between the royalists, the city-state of Pronsk, and Tatar settler-chiefs. It would take several years for the Prince of Ryazan to truly unite the country under a single banner. see here:

Seeing as reading the talk page is a rule, and not just for this map game, its on the main map game page, I think I may start blocking people for a day who have discussions on the main pages. From now on, if something is implausible and people wish to discuss it I will allow a note on the main page asking people to see the talk page for further info, for those who don't read the talk page normally.Oerwinde 18:42, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but Blocking a user for a whole day? I say, just delete the arguement and keep deleting it until they get the fact that discussions are on the talk page

Athens - Byzantine Empire
Whilst Athen's was ruled by a duke, it was a tributary of Morea and the Despote who ruled there. Nerio therefore wouldn't have become Emperor (unless I've missed his conquering of Morea in an early turn??). The ruling Palegious of Morea would therefore still be in a position to regain the Imperial Crown. Can we change the main page back to my original of Constantine?? Rivendell78 19:44, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

And I've just answered my own question. I will have a look and reword some of my posts to fit in and around. Damn someone getting Athens to conquer Morea before I had a chance to do the reverse ;-) Rivendell78 19:50, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Portugal
How is Portugal out of hand? They conquered Galicia and parts of Granada and were focusing on the muslims. The pope wouldn't have any problem with that. Castille likely would as they had lost some territory, but with Portugal fighting the Berbers Aragon wouldn't really see them as a major threat.Oerwinde 09:30, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Also, Portugal is about to implode, with its constant warmongering Roguejedi 15:15, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Galicia and parts of Castille are mostly Catholic. So the Portuguese have conquered other people's Catholic lands. Although focusing on the Muslims, they are a threat for the rest of the nations in the Iberian Peninsula. OK, I won't revive my post, but as soon as I have an oportunity, Portugal implodes. Fedelede 23:27, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of doing it in about two or so turns, and remember that Casttille attacked Portugal first (near the beggining of the game) Roguejedi 00:15, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

If and when Portugal explodes, can we re-establish Leon in the chaos? Should be interesting. Michael Douglas 00:37, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

And Galicia?

Yes, that would be interesting. I was also thinking of Gibralter and Republic of Iberia to be countries, but I think Portugal should get a little bigger first, so the effects are more noticable. Roguejedi 17:23, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Even if Portugal imploded would that nessecarily lead to the creation of new or successor states? If you are having Portugal over reach itself it is more likely that Aragon and Castile would move into territory that Portugal could no longer control. They wouldn't tolerate micro states setting up. It would be more realistic if these states existed for a "year" before being swallowed up by one of the two Spanish states 91.108.183.18 19:17, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the border countries would do that, but the interior countries would stay strong. Remember that an emourmous majority of the people in the countries will fight for independence and likely survive. Also, the new nations would band together kif a Spainish nation atttacked, knowing that apart they will be taken over. Roguejedi 20:27, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Independance of what? The peasants will follow their feudal overlords and most of the overlords will either be Portugeuse, dead or Castilian/Catalan (Argonese) It will be more realistic if whichever of those two states is in a better position to exploit moves onto the defunct Portugeuse territory. I take it that Portugal will be rolled back to their pre-expansion territory or will you allow them to hold onto some of their gains (as even with an internal implosion it wouldn't nessecarily follow that they would lose all their newly gained territory esp if Aragon and Castile have bene weakened by previous Portuguese expansionsRivendell78 09:21, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

I say they should lose Galicia but keep their gains along the southern coast and in Granada. Their gains in North Africa should be pushed back to Tangiers. My reasoning for this is thus: sure theres unrest, but that won't necessarily result in a broken up Portugal, most likely they would pull their forces back from africa to put down the rebellions in the mainland as it is more developed and therefore more valuable. So they would put down the rebellions in Granada and Andalusia, but not before rebel nobility establishes a hold on Galicia. Galician nobles likely would prefer establishing their own realm before submitting to another, hence the re-establishment of Galicia. Castille will likely see this as a usurpation of their titles though.

I like of Portugal being the dominant nation in Iberia, as most althists seem to have Portugal absorbed by Spain, or Aragon being dominant, but it should take longer than 15 years. See the expansion of Bohemia in the original game as an example. It took 200 years or so for them to get as huge as they are.Oerwinde 09:32, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

I think thats a sensible outcome. If Portugal have been strong enough to take what they have already that won't change overnight. A reduction of their North African territory in order to reinforce their Iberian conquests is reasonable. Galicia regaining a semblence of independance, but under whose suzerinty? They would end up under someones as without a king it is a collection of nobles so one or the other would seek help to overcome the others (to be honest with the expansion of Normandy and Ocitania the rump of France should have imploded a few turns ago too) Rivendell78 10:37, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

What about if they keep Galizia but lose southernmost Spain? Galizia is more closely related with Portugal in cultural terms. Andalusia has it's own culture and Granada is mostly Muslim and Moorish. Fedelede 11:52, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

If the Portugese Empire breaks up, here's what I think will happen.


 * Leon becomes briefly independant; without something odd happening, it becomes a part of Castille again.


 * Granada reemerges, but has been severely weakened. Granada will now be more of a theocracy as the secular government was mostly destroyed. An easy future taget.


 * Mainland Portugal will only have been strengthened, but most of its military will be dead or very, very tired of conflict.


 * Portugese Africa will be fought over by the Allied Muslim Countries, which without portugal need no alliance any longer.

Michael Douglas 17:33, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Crusades
How are these crusades being allowed to happen? By this period in Europes history the crusades were a dying idea. Plus with all the continuous warfare going on across the continent the Pope would not be able to raise these troops. The Patriach would not call for such a crusade when so many Othodox are living in Muslim lands, and the Copts are a seperate Church entirely commited to keeping as many of themselves alive as possible. This is in danger of rapidly running into implausiblityRivendell78 13:50, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

It's not the most implausible thing that has happened in this map game. ESPECIALLY not your posts of Mamluk superiority. Besides, an attack on Christian communities on the Middle East to that way (which never happened in the OTL Muslim World) would almost surely trigger a Crusade, especially in a so anti-European state as the Mamluks were. Fedelede 14:03, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Here are the real reasons that the crusades would take place:


 * The Orthodox Church is centered in the resurgent Byzantine Empire and is closely tied to that Empire's success. Since the recent and dramatic fall of the Ottomans, (we probably need to add more stuff in here, e.g. civil war, to make that seem a little more plausible) the Byzantines have been itching to reclaim Anatolia.


 * The Muslim world has become more radical then it was OTL by this point. Yes, it was provoked, but the Muslims seem to have left their policy of somewhat tolerance behind, which is a good cause for war. This could definately get into the public imagination.


 * The downfall of France has freed the papacy from French control. By this point in history the papacy was basically a french puppet; the french had no interest on going on a crusade so neither did the pope. Without the French, and with the HRE occupied with the aftermath of the Pskov War, the papacy doesn't have an empire to supress it, leaving it free to attempt to regain influence by leading the smaller states of Europe into a war under its direction. This is a gamble. If it pays off, the papacy gets its influence back. If not, the papacy will become a puppet to another kingdom for a bit.


 * Aragon is one of the greatest powers in the mediterranian right now. They want Alexandria, but can't keep it without breaking the back of the Malmukes, for which they need help. Aragon is also the empire most likely to be able to influence the papacy (might control it later even).

These factors would make the declaration of a new crusade plausible. Michael Douglas 15:29, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine, I can follow your logic Michael as you've put it, it was just the "pope declares a crusade and gains thousands of troops in one year" that I was finding difficult to swallow. Mamluk superiority is not a given in my posts but they would certainly have local superiority around Alexandria (as Aragon had seemed to have totally forgotten it) which is why I thought that they would retake it. The anti-christian attacks by the Mamluks was prompted by the Marionite rebellions and was just an outcome of a threat to Mamluk control. My main concern was really where all these troops (and the money to pay) were coming from as there are a lot of wars going on at the moment and all of a sudden we have all these troops and armies in the eastern Med Rivendell78 17:13, February 20, 2011 (UTC)