Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

AGC-EEP Holland

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
I'd say we might be close to agreeing on this:

Hainault owns Artois, vassal to Holland.
Brabant owns Brabant and Zeeland
Freisen owns Freisland
Gelre owns Gelders
Burgundy owns Flanders (Picardy open for debate)
Hainault vassal to Holland (IIRC Holland get Freisen as a vassal by event in EEP).
 
Last edited:
Hainaut was one coherent state at the time though, owning the lands of Holland and Hainaut, and also Friesland.

By the way, how do you feel about Friesland owning Oldenburg too?
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I'd say we might be close to agreeing on this:

Hainault owns Artois, vassal to Holland.
Brabant owns Brabant and Zeeland
Freisen owns Freisland
Gelre owns Gelders
Burgundy owns Flanders (Picardy open for debate)
Hainault vassal to Holland (IIRC Holland get Freisen as a vassal by event in EEP).
Click to expand...

Yes Friesland become a Vassal of Holland but only for a short time.

Okay going along with this:

Holland owns Holland, cores on Holland, Zeeland and perhaps Friesland?

Hainault owns Artois, vassal to Holland, cores on Holand as well?

Brabant owns Brabant and Zeeland, core only on Brabant?

Freisen owns Freisland, core on Holand as well?

Gelre owns Gelders

Burgundy owns Flanders (Picardy open for debate), cores?


BTW not that I have a say in it, just my opinion.
 
Originally posted by Mad King James
By the way, how do you feel about Friesland owning Oldenburg too?
Click to expand...

Well if you look at the map I presented earlier it looks fustifiable. I have reason to believed that Friesland should very decentralised. (They did not care much for nobles telling them what to do)
 
Last edited:
Why would Hainault be an independent vassal of Holland (or whatever name it is given)? By 1419 Jean Sans Pitie was pretty much in charge of the country (and had the Counties bestowed upon him by Emperor Sigismund in 1418). Btw the Dutch Wittelsbach country should also own Ansbach (representing Straubing). And wouldn't it in theory be most accurate to actually call the whole thing Straubing, considering that Straubing was connected with a ducal title while the Dutch holdings were only counties? :D
More seriously, I'm still not sure I see the point in calling the country "Hainault". The Dutch Wittelsbachs are almost always referenced first as Counts of Holland, not of Hainault - and a revolter in Holland between 1433 and 1560 is more useful than one in Hainault / Artois.
 
I only put it that way because that's how it is in the AGC. Giving Hainault Holland and Artois makes sense to me. Don't see why they are needed as a revolter though.

Gelre is the Dutch name, and seems to be pretty common in English (for the country not the province) too. But I'd like Gelderland :)
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock


Gelre is the Dutch name, and seems to be pretty common in English (for the country not the province) too. But I'd like Gelderland :) [/B]
Click to expand...


Your'e sure Gelre is the Dutch name?

Iv'e seen various Dutch sites where Gelre is refered to as Gelderland.
 
But the province in the Union of Utrecht is Gelderland, right?
 
You're arguing on semantics while the question of the setup in 1419, and up to the point when everything is Burgundian, is still not settled definitely :rolleyes: Unless I'm mistaken, we have more or less agreed on what each province represents, being:
Friesland represents western Frisia, capital Ljouwert
Geldre represents Gelre (or Gelderland, whatever ;)), capital Nijmegen
Holland represents Holland proper, capital Amsterdam, and in the 15th century as well Zeeland
Zeeland represents North Brabant in the 15th century, thereafter Zeeland, capital Middelburg
Brabant represents Brabant (in the 15th century only the south), capital Brussel
Flandern represents Flandern (the Burgundian part), capital Gent (not Antwerpen because Antwerpen was actually ruled by Brabant, and Gent is the ancient residence of the Counts of Flandern)
Artois represents Hainault, capital Mons
Luxembourg represents Luxemburg, capital Luxemburg

Are we indeed agreeing on this? If so, let us stick definitely with this and proceed to the next step, figuring, on the base of what we have decided regarding what each province represents, a reasonable and realistic country setup in 1419, that I feel particularly needs to take into account the marriages between Jan of Brabant and Jacqueline and between Jan of Bavaria and Elizabeth of Görlitz, owner of Luxemburg.
One thing perhaps worth consideration - and I think already suggested by magdat - would be to let Calais represent Artois. Any opinions on that? I think, despite the strategic importance of Calais, this might be a nice idea letting the map look a lot better - covering the city of Calais and its very surroundings as a whole province seems odd to me.
 
Yes that is the best setup of the area,
One minor quibble, with the switch from Antwerpen to Gent will flandern still have a port, because Gent is not really next to the sea. Gent is definetly more important than Antwerpen in 1419 in the province, but after the unification of all the dutch provinces Antwerpen became the most prominent city in the region and stayed that way until now.

Calais representing Artois makes the map look more ‘right’ but it creates the problem a name problem and Calais was important in the HYW. I think it is not worth the confusion it creates.
 
Political setup

Let us have a closer look at the political and dynastic situation in the lowlands:
  • Jacqueline of Bavaria, heiress of the Counties of Holland, Hainault and Zeeland, was married to Jan IV of Brabant, and although she was not happy about it, Jan decided over the couple's possessions, e.g. when concluding the Treaty of Woudrichem
  • Jan of Bavaria, formerly Prince Bishop of Liege, was the husband of Elizabeth of Görlitz who held Luxembourg as a pawn. On September 16th 1417 Emperor Sigismund declared Jan beneficiary of Luxemburg until his death.
  • In the beginning of 1419, Jacqueline was not legal countess of Holland, Hainault and Zeeland. Emperor Sigismund stubbornly rejected to legitimize female succession and instead bestowed the three counties upon Jan of Bavaria in 1418. Only by Burgundian and English support, she and Jan of Brabant managed to succeed to Hainault and keep a foothold in Holland and Zeeland. As the wife of the cousin of the Duke of Burgundian, she was in fact originally preferred by Burgundy, Jan of Bavaria being the candidate of the Emperor and opposed to Burgundy.
  • should note here that the already existing "Treaty of Woudrichem" and "Invasion of Hainault" events by MKJ have two important things fundamentally wrong
    a) MKJ obviously did not know that in 1419 Jacqueline was in fact the Burgundian candidate
    b) MKJ confused Jan of Bavaria with Jan of Brabant. Jan of Brabant, not of Bavaria, became effective ruler of Hainault by the agreement of Woudrichem, and Jackie's and Humphrey's invasion of Hainault was in fact against Brabant and its Burgundian overlord. The only quote I could find in the internet that truly clears up the situation is this, in Dutch
    from http://www.wandelaar.nl/w2Brakel.html
    Jacoba aanvaardde dit niet, liet in 1421 haar huwelijk ongeldig verklaren en week uit naar Engeland. Daar huwde zij in 1422 met Humphrey van Gloucester, met wie zij in 1424 in Henegouwen de strijd aanbond tegen haar ex-echtgenoot, die gesteund werd door Filips de Goede.
    Click to expand...
    And my attempt at translation
    Jacoba did not accept this, had her marriage declared invalid in 1421 and went to England. There in 1422 she married Humphrey of Gloucester, with whom she ín 1424 began a quarrel against her former husband, who was controlled by Philipp the Good.
    Click to expand...
  • It was again due to Burgundian intervention that Jan of Bavaria, despite being the legitimate heir, could not secure possession of the three counties. By the treaty of Woudrichem, Jan of Brabant - not Jacqueline - became regent of the whole thing, with Jan of Bavaria retaining vast holdings in Holland and being promised a huge compensation, but swearing allegiance to Jan of Brabant.
  • In 1420 Jan of Brabant, unable to pay up the compensation promised to Jan of Bavaria in the Treaty of Woudrichem, mortgaged Holland and Zeeland - but not Hainault - to the latter for 12 years. Thus Jan of Bavaria was entirely in charge of Holland and Zeeland while Jan of Brabant still retained Hainault

Based on this information, I would suggest the following country setup in 1419:
  • Luxemburg, ruled by Jan of Bavaria, owns Luxembourg, Ansbach (Straubing, of which Jan was regent since 1392 and Duke since 1417) and Holland and has shields on Artois (Hainault), Brabant and Zeeland (Jan's wife Elizabeth claimed succession to Brabant)
  • Brabant owns Brabant, Zeeland and Hainault
  • Brabant remains allied to and a vassal of Burgundy
  • This might mean effectively that the tag for Holland-Hainault is not needed, except for some ahistorical options
 
Last edited:
Nice work, was doing some research myself, saves me some work.

About the translation "gesteund", means supported not controlled, althought perhaps that could have been a better discription of the actual situation, I don't know.

About Brabant being a vassal is this really justifiable? I am not sure, after Johannas death Antoon of Burgundy ruled Brabant (1406-1415). I am still uncertain what this means for the relation Burgundy-Brabant. After this there was Jan IV (1415-1427) and Filips van Sint Pol (1427-1430). After his death (died heirless) Philip the Good of Burgundy plead his cause to the "Staten van Brabant" succesfully and ruled Brabant and I guess in eu2 terms annexed it. Untill that time the "Staten van Brabant" strongly resisted Burgundy influence untill 1430.


BTW: nice link here

BTW2: The Calais-Artois thing was not my idea.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Twoflower, that's very helpful in understanding what was going on.

But based on the chronology you're discussing I question the need for Hainault at all. If it's going to stay attached to Brabant, which will already have Brabant and Zeeland, it seems to me that Artois province might as well represent Artois itself, capital Lille. I'd rather Burgundy have two provinces in the region than Brabant have three.
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
But based on the chronology you're discussing I question the need for Hainault at all. If it's going to stay attached to Brabant, which will already have Brabant and Zeeland, it seems to me that Artois province might as well represent Artois itself, capital Lille. I'd rather Burgundy have two provinces in the region than Brabant have three. [/B]
Click to expand...

It would be wrong for the Dutch Wittelsbach possessions to be smaller than Brabant, even if both are put into one country. Hence, if you think that Brabant would be too big with 3 provinces, it would IMO be better to just let the Zeeland province represent Zeeland, i.e. cede it to Luxembourg (Jan of Bavaria) in 1420.
Besides Hainault fits the Artois province quite nicely.
 
Originally posted by Twoflower
It would be wrong for the Dutch Wittelsbach possessions to be smaller than Brabant, even if both are put into one country.
Click to expand...

But it's OK for Brabant to have three provinces in the region while Burgundy only has one? If Hainault will remain with Brabant the whole time why not just presume that it's in Brabant province?
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
But it's OK for Brabant to have three provinces in the region while Burgundy only has one? If Hainault will remain with Brabant the whole time why not just presume that it's in Brabant province?
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but why would you prefer 2-2 instead of 1-3 (Burgundy-Brabant provinces)? It would like to question the real strength of Burgundy in the Low Countries here.

I reckon Brabant and the treaty of Woudrichem was the key in this whole issue. I mean if Brabant would have allied with Bavaria and/or Jacqueline/Jacoba, chances for Burgundy had decreased dramatically. I mean the actual position of Burgundy in the Low Countries was pretty weak. Burgundy’s political/diplomatic position on the other hand was very strong, of course being helped by the fact that Jan IV of Brabant was a fool.

What I mean to say is, I don’t necessarily see a problem for Brabant to have 3 provinces, because if there is an event for annexation in 1430 there will an 85 % chance it will agree (resembling Burgundies strong political/diplomatic position). But if Brabant disagrees it will be quite powerful, which it would have been, because it actually did own some considerable territory with Hainault included. And thus resembling the weak position (geographical and resources) Burgundy had in the Low Countries.

I mean if neither the Bavarian branch nor Brabant would cooperate with Burgundy it would not have had a strong position in reality either, right?

But if it is still thought that Burgundy should be stronger (only if a 3-province Brabant is chosen), Burgundy could receive Flanderen and Artois (eu2-Calais). Perhaps Picardie would need to become Calais?

I’ll post something a bit more constructive later. Furthermore it could become quite interesting if we let the treaty of Woudrichem play a real role as an event. Perhaps more on that later).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back