Bavaria in Aberration II

[MattyG]

Well given that a simple solution is more desirable then a complex one, and having the HRE being LESS powerful then he was IRL during the same time frame it is far more likely that they would be as powerful in aberration as they were in the historic not less.

There must be some kind of basic reference to history for us to even have a discussion on this subject. And the sad truth of the matter is that it is far, far more likely that you will have no weaker an emperor at the start of an aberration game then you would have in vanilla. But for the sake of argument if you guys want to have a substantially weaker emperor by all means go ahead, I can't think of a set of circumstances that would lead you to them giving up anymore then was done in the Golden Bull...

OK. Again, we are getting even further ahead now. I repeat that my understanding of the HRE is minimal. You are becoming more rational and less ranty and this is being a big help.

edit:

In my opinion one of the strengths of aberration as a mod, especially an alternate history mod, is it degree of plausibility. Could England have come flying apart as a kingdom given an alternative Hastings? Certainly, it had not been unified for very long and there were some residual regional feelings that could come to the for with a little nurturing by a warlord with delusions of grandeur or two (and there always seems to be a few lying around the side stages of history). The same could happen to France, although I think that the more likely outcome is one that can not be handled by the game engine (Pope makes the crown elective much like the HRE). The whole rest of the lot also is credible/plausible enough to be engaging and vibrant.

Thank you. And, yes, I am obviously concerned with plausibility, although - like balance - this is something each individual will be more or less sensitive to. Some people will find even vanilla/agceep to be implausible interpretations of what happened.

But there is a fine line therein as well, only so much you can tweak before it flies in the face of credulity and totter off into the realm of the banal and ridiculous. And one of those would be to weaken the HRE below its' historically known level as you imply may need be done.

It was my great preference that a central German state not be a feature of every game of Aberration. It is extremely wealthy and the unified culture (at least in the broad EU2 strokes) makes for a lot of abuseable manpower. It has been a very common theme in all threads on Germany that players are weary and warey of a unified German state. However, what you have below could work, as it is not as straightforward as this.

With England gone, France now a squabbling puppy pile of successor states and Spain still firmly in the grasp of the infidel (not to mention the heretic Byzantines still all to alive and kicking), what possible and plausible reason would there be to weaken the last strong arm of Christendom (with no offense meant to our Orthodox brethren, just trying to speak in period here)? If anything the tend would be to make it stronger, as we can see from recent history IRL, nothing concentrates power like a perceived outside threat.

An excellent point.

Besides, the kind of independence of SWA and HAN from the HRE you are looking for could not be achieved as long as the HRE was still in existence. Which in turn could be the solution to your problem however bold a solution that may be: Pre-start German unification, or a unification event very shortly after the start of the game. It can be assumed the "A" choice for SWA and HAN will be "NO!!" to the unification, and thereby guarentee their independence of that nasty bit of imperial entanglement; but it would also guarentee extreme emnity between the three. But it will tend to cost you some of the German minors.

Perfect. I think you are on to something significant and delicious here.

But barring that there is not much that can be done as long as they are subjects of the Empire and Emperor, even the Electors who were given regal status and privaledge by the Emperor were still subjects OF the Emperor and answerable to him. And I don't think that you can give Swabia and the Hansa much above being considered on the same level as a King.

As a counterpoint, I think that we need to also remember that in this period it was difficult to keep large continental states together. As much as forces work to centralize and sustain, there are other forces working to decentralize and break. Princes want their independence, there are always those seeking to replace a ruler and we are not living in the age of nationalism yet, so most people are not attached to any idea of a German state per se.

If we have an early unification event, this Germany ( for want of a better term) will be very hard to hold together. Both because of the desire for 'independence' by those within this nation accostomed to paying only lip service to the Emperor, but because of the coming reformation. A reformation which, however implausible, we will be keeping as a core element of Aberration and which will still happen some time in the 1520 period.

The event scripting will be fun. The challenge in keeping this empire together needs to be beyond the ability of the ai and a nice challenge to a player, although not impossible.

- increasing revoltrisk in events that attempt to force the Emperor to decentraliza as his authority is challenged.
- a reformation that sees princes use it for political purposes as they did in RL, ceding from the empire along with the religion that sustains it
- the War of Religion becomes now as much a civil war as it does a religious war

I love it. In essence it is the reverse of what most people foresee. Instead of beginning the game with a fractured Germany that gives way to unification through force majeur in the 1550s, it begins (well, soon after) with unification and becomes fractured during the 1550s.

 

[unmerged(16159)]

As a counterpoint, I think that we need to also remember that in this period it was difficult to keep large continental states together. As much as forces work to centralize and sustain, there are other forces working to decentralize and break. Princes want their independence, there are always those seeking to replace a ruler and we are not living in the age of nationalism yet, so most people are not attached to any idea of a German state per se.

I see this as a pretty major point. I don't see that there were forces existing at any time from 1300 to 1600 which wanted to - and had the capacity to - create a greater german state, with the exception of the Habsburgs, who were torn apart for attempting it.

Any blobby germanic nation (call it Germany, call it Mitteleuropa, call it Dennis) is only going to exist in 1419 to 1600 through a spectacular series of conquests and marriages that would be unlikely IRL, and therefore irrational in Aberration.

The HRE was a series of deals and agreements which - above all - respected royal inheritance and rules of succession. IRL casus bellli and BB were a lot more important than they are in EU2. There are perhaps very good reasons why the HRE was the closest thing the germans found to a ruling house in 700 years of conflict and marriage and religious turmoil.

If the Wittelsbachs get large enough to form Dennis, then their BB score must be astronomical, and deservedly so. Alliances would form against such a beast IRL that would make the War of Spanish Succession looks like a tea party.

Which is why the HRE worked. A giant legal system to regulate the german states and their successions, but not too powerful that the Emperor could annex everything. In a way the HRE WAS a unified Germany, in a funnny kind of a way.

If we Aberrate this, we tip the delicate balance and royal houses everywhere will go scurrying to protect their legitimacies. Suddenly the HRE ceases to exists as a functional body and irrelevancy threatens. If any state attempts to form the Dennis Blob, then events should fire which ally TO, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, Hansa, Swabia, Burgundy, etc against it.

If we have an early unification event, this Germany ( for want of a better term) will be very hard to hold together. Both because of the desire for 'independence' by those within this nation accostomed to paying only lip service to the Emperor, but because of the coming reformation. A reformation which, however implausible, we will be keeping as a core element of Aberration and which will still happen some time in the 1520 period.

The event scripting will be fun. The challenge in keeping this empire together needs to be beyond the ability of the ai and a nice challenge to a player, although not impossible.

- increasing revoltrisk in events that attempt to force the Emperor to decentraliza as his authority is challenged.
- a reformation that sees princes use it for political purposes as they did in RL, ceding from the empire along with the religion that sustains it
- the War of Religion becomes now as much a civil war as it does a religious war

I love it. In essence it is the reverse of what most people foresee. Instead of beginning the game with a fractured Germany that gives way to unification through force majeur in the 1550s, it begins (well, soon after) with unification and becomes fractured during the 1550s.

Sooooo, I don't love it. It's too soon. In late 1600 when perhaps the monied classes begin to hold sway over the royal blood. Maybe we create Dennis as a result of the REformation, or as an indirect consequences of the upheaval caused by the Reformation. But I can't see it happening ratinally BEFORE the reformation, or indeed too much before it.

 

[MattyG]

Sounds like you and bobtdwarf completely and utterly disagree on the HRE, how it ran, the powers of the emperor and what colour of underwear they used.

I await his response .....

 

[unmerged(16159)]

Sounds like you and bobtdwarf completely and utterly disagree on the HRE, how it ran, the powers of the emperor and what colour of underwear they used.

I await his response .....

No it was 3am, and I was delirious. I may have been wrong. I will read what I wrote and get back to you.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

OK. Again, we are getting even further ahead now. I repeat that my understanding of the HRE is minimal. You are becoming more rational and less ranty and this is being a big help.



1.) Thank you. And, yes, I am obviously concerned with plausibility, although - like balance - this is something each individual will be more or less sensitive to. Some people will find even vanilla/agceep to be implausible interpretations of what happened.



2.) It was my great preference that a central German state not be a feature of every game of Aberration. It is extremely wealthy and the unified culture (at least in the broad EU2 strokes) makes for a lot of abuseable manpower. It has been a very common theme in all threads on Germany that players are weary and warey of a unified German state. However, what you have below could work, as it is not as straightforward as this.



An excellent point.



Perfect. I think you are on to something significant and delicious here.



3.) As a counterpoint, I think that we need to also remember that in this period it was difficult to keep large continental states together. As much as forces work to centralize and sustain, there are other forces working to decentralize and break. Princes want their independence, there are always those seeking to replace a ruler and we are not living in the age of nationalism yet, so most people are not attached to any idea of a German state per se.

If we have an early unification event, this Germany ( for want of a better term) will be very hard to hold together. Both because of the desire for 'independence' by those within this nation accostomed to paying only lip service to the Emperor, but because of the coming reformation. A reformation which, however implausible, we will be keeping as a core element of Aberration and which will still happen some time in the 1520 period.

4.) The event scripting will be fun. The challenge in keeping this empire together needs to be beyond the ability of the ai and a nice challenge to a player, although not impossible.

- increasing revoltrisk in events that attempt to force the Emperor to decentraliza as his authority is challenged.
- a reformation that sees princes use it for political purposes as they did in RL, ceding from the empire along with the religion that sustains it
- the War of Religion becomes now as much a civil war as it does a religious war

I love it. In essence it is the reverse of what most people foresee. Instead of beginning the game with a fractured Germany that gives way to unification through force majeur in the 1550s, it begins (well, soon after) with unification and becomes fractured during the 1550s.

Although I could format this using bbcode I am loathe to do so since it really blows my train of thought. Instead I have just numbered the points that I wish to address.

1.) I would look into the general level of knowledge of the subject in regards those that do not find AGCEEP plausible. They may have a point in some cases, but in most I would hazard a guess it is more a factor of low marks in their history classes. There are some legitimate quibbles on what some of the "B" and "C" choices could be for an event, but the events themselves are matters of record and therefore not disputable. The fantasy events are the ones that are open to the broadest amount of argument and that is fair since they are as much about what would be "cool" as anything else, and "cool" is always in the eye of the beholder.

In the case of Aberration the quibbles will likely not be so great if the early part of the game, that part that has the most resemblence to the history we know (well at least enough that we can see how it got there), is plausible. After that we are well into the realm of conjecture, but by then the players have bought into the alternate reality and have willingly suspended any disbelief.

2.) I can understand your feelings on this. I would however like to make a case for an alteration in the thinking here. I have always found it best when designing a scenario or writing an alternate history or story, to divorce myself of preference. It may not work for everyone but it does seem to yield the best most plausible results as you are not constantly injecting opinion or desire into the piece and thereby altering the flavor of it to the consumer. In the case of Aberration, the game has its' own logic and life, there are much larger forces at play and a story of its' own making waiting to work its' way through it. All one has to do is ask and answer honestly and without bias or agenda some basic questions and record the results. The story will make itself known in that way.

Given the geo-political climate of the game and the various impeti at play a strongish and unified German state seems a more probable outcome then not. It is neither desireable or undesirable, it just "is" and should not be actively discouraged in forming. Nor should it really be aided as it will form on its' own or not (well you do have to script for it etc. Mainly I was waxing philosophic). I generally discount or ignore any argument that is based in no small part on "game" dynamics as it has no place in answering a fundimentally historical question: "Could it have happened"?

The part of my original post that you may have thought ranty was probably dealing with that. If one works dilegently to make the history plausible then the fun of playing the game takes care of itself. But if you work only on the game aspect of it, you butcher the history portion distorting it and twisting it into something that it is not. And that almost always is going to lead to not only MORE work as you are constantly tweaking things to rebalance what was thrown out of balance; but it also negatively and substantially impacts "fun". The amount of effort that was being expended in various threads on the AGCEEP threads in keeping German minors alive was essentially wasted. And the amount of effort put into tweaking the game so that they would survive and that would see certain historical events in the late game period created as many if not more problems then they have solved. The answer was to forgo all of that and instead of trying to make sure that in the CG you would have something like the Napoleonic wars play out; put the effort into building scenarios keyed to key time periods. But I am tangenting here.

3.) It is always tough to keep large nations together. Geography alone will dictate regional differences that can sometimes flame up. Luckily the game engine already takes what you are referring to into account: The springing of "nationalist" movements. There should be no need to add wood to that fire by increasing RR etc. Your point on nationalism is well taken. There is no idea of a "nation" as we know it, but there is still the idea of loyalty to a dynasty or crown. In the case of the HRE even the common folk know that their lord is a vassal to the emperor as they are to their lord. So Germany should be no harder to hold together then France in Vanilla or AGCEEP. The tough part is putting it together in the first place! Once that is done it should hold together just like every other nation in Europe.

The reformation should still happen as I can see nothing about how the church would operate in an alternate history that would preclude Luther getting a bug in his bonnet over the Borge excesses. The same Popes are going to be elected and they are going to carry out the same policies and that would yield the same result. The only thing that I would really like to see somebody do in all of the Mods is actually script an event for the reformation that checks to see if PAP exists. If there is no Papal States, there is no Pope per se (the wandering Papacy idea from IIRC AGCEEP not withstanding), and therefore no excesses to rebel against. In the case of Aberration I would posit that there is a very, very good chance of instead of a Protestant movement you would see a swing towards Orthodoxy as the desires expressed by Luther for the most part were closer to it then not. With a strong Orthodox Byzantium still in existence and active there may be a bit of play there.

The scripting would be key here and it would be very easy to overplay it. The Emperor should be given a couple of early events at the start of the reformation that will set the early tone: Crush it, or not to crush it, with an intermediary step or two for the tentative player. And there needs to be an event string for BYZ to exploit and possibly influence (and conversely be influenced BY) the reformation towards a more Orthodox view of things.

Now in Aberration as I recall there is an event string dealing with the Protestants in France appealing to the Sultan in Granada.... that should have some very negative consequences for their co-religionists in other parts of the world like Germany as it could and should be rightly seen by the people of the era as making a deal with the devil. How big a deal it would be is debatable...

4.) No need to go out of your way to make holding any empire together more difficult then it would normally be. The game engine already has most of the tear stuff apart thing down pat. The way the HRE was structured in regards to legitimacy, titles etc would tend to make it a very stable political structure once it unified, well as stable as a State could be during the era. So it should not be very hard for the AI to keep the thing together. Now given there is still going to be difficulty but it should as I have said be no more difficult to keep in one piece as France is in Vanilla, she just starts from a much less cohesive starting point is all. But in Aberration considering everything she would tend to want to stay together or at least not come completely apart given what the probable state of the world would be around that time. It is going to take some outside machinations to really start her rending apart is what I am trying to get at here.

If the war starts, and that should NOT be a given (there should be some revolts definitely and those revolts should increase if the HEI is a complete pontz about things), it would be a bit of civil war, religious war, and outside parties attempting to weaken a rival. Imagine as the Sultan and Byzantine emperor both try to finance and encourage strife...

 

[unmerged(36449)]

I see this as a pretty major point. I don't see that there were forces existing at any time from 1300 to 1600 which wanted to - and had the capacity to - create a greater german state, with the exception of the Habsburgs, who were torn apart for attempting it.

Any blobby germanic nation (call it Germany, call it Mitteleuropa, call it Dennis) is only going to exist in 1419 to 1600 through a spectacular series of conquests and marriages that would be unlikely IRL, and therefore irrational in Aberration.

The HRE was a series of deals and agreements which - above all - respected royal inheritance and rules of succession. IRL casus bellli and BB were a lot more important than they are in EU2. There are perhaps very good reasons why the HRE was the closest thing the germans found to a ruling house in 700 years of conflict and marriage and religious turmoil.

If the Wittelsbachs get large enough to form Dennis, then their BB score must be astronomical, and deservedly so. Alliances would form against such a beast IRL that would make the War of Spanish Succession looks like a tea party.

Which is why the HRE worked. A giant legal system to regulate the german states and their successions, but not too powerful that the Emperor could annex everything. In a way the HRE WAS a unified Germany, in a funnny kind of a way.

If we Aberrate this, we tip the delicate balance and royal houses everywhere will go scurrying to protect their legitimacies. Suddenly the HRE ceases to exists as a functional body and irrelevancy threatens. If any state attempts to form the Dennis Blob, then events should fire which ally TO, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, Hansa, Swabia, Burgundy, etc against it.





Sooooo, I don't love it. It's too soon. In late 1600 when perhaps the monied classes begin to hold sway over the royal blood. Maybe we create Dennis as a result of the REformation, or as an indirect consequences of the upheaval caused by the Reformation. But I can't see it happening ratinally BEFORE the reformation, or indeed too much before it.

I think that you are basing your argument far to much on what actually happened in our history and not enough on what is the history of Aberration.

By whatever events the Wittelsbachs are in possession of a bulk of the electoral votes, they possess a sizable quantity of the territory that composes Germany (roughly a third by my recollection), and you have at the same time events that have rended France apart, left Iberia in the hands of the Moors and Byzantium stands strong as well as there being a growing pan-Scandinavian state.

When faced with a strong outside threat the Empire tried to reform and consolidate IRL. But it lacked a strong Emperor, something that Aberration does not have as the Wittelsbachs control so many votes already. Also, few of the noble houses had a problem with being mediatized if they were small ones. Now given that the Emperor would not need to mediatize a noble nor seize his estates in this scenario (as all he is claiming is what he has an absolute right to and that is the sovereignty over the land in question), nor would he be interfering at all in the succession rights of any of the houses. I can not see where the bulk of the HRE would have an issue with the formation of Germany.

The nobles keep their estates, their children inherit them, they still have their seats in the Reichstag and privy council as defined by their station; the only thing that changes for them is having to maintain an army. They would likely as they did IRL even maintain the ability to meet out low and in some cases high justice and mint money(looking at the IRL German empire structure which was based in no small part on the principles of the HRE). Three things prevented the Hapsburgs from pulling this off earlier: 1. They did not control a single electoral vote but the contested Bohemian one requiring them to make deals that in the long term weakened the realm. 2. They were always seen as a bit of an outsider, and a bit of a jerk at that so they were not well trusted. And 3. They really didn't try that hard, and were not in a position to really try that hard based upon 1.

The Wittelsbachs however in Aberration do not have to make deals with 4 of the 7 electors to get elected as the Hapsburgs did. They only have to make a deal with ONE, making it a buyers market not a sellers. And if one assumes that Bavaria defeats the Hussites and gains Bohemia as a vassal (should have the possibility of being crowned King later IMO), one can presume that they have control over the Bohemian vote which may not be as contended in Aberration as IRL. That would leave them with control of a majority of electors, and if events fire just right they will pick up KOL and its' vote, and technically they provide enough of the Archbishops over the course of the game to make KOLs' vote a pretty safe one in their column until they get absorbed by the Hansa if the event doesn't go for BAY.

For all practical purposes the HRE in Aberration is a hereditary monarchy, sure the throne is still elective; just as the German Empires Kaiser was an elective crown (take a look, it was, just Prussia controlled a majority of votes from the start). And just as the Second reich allowed for the various sub Kingdoms and Duchies to exist within it, even to the point of Bavaria being able to maintain diplomatic legations attached to the German ones as well as a seperate army, air force and mint; so would this HRE. The only thing is that they do not have a seperate foreign policy, and therefore could not be, nor should not be, seen as "vassal" states within the game.

It would be improbable to nigh unto impossible for a part of the Empire to make an alliance with a foreign power and make war upon the rest of the empire. Just as it was in the Second reich. The only thing that the various nobles are giving up is the ability to make war upon their sovereign.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm

may be a helpful resource.

a couple of snippets on the Emperor...well they are bigger then snippets.

1. The Emperor

Qualifications

The Emperor had to be a worthy man, aged 18 or more, reside in the Empire, be of noble birth (all four grandparents had to be noble, according to the Schwabenspiegel), and of lay status (this was not explicitly stated). No law required that he be Catholic, and, although the text in a number of laws assumes that the emperor is Catholic, jurists saw no obstacle to the choice of a Protestant prince. Nor did he have to be German, as the examples of Alfonso of Castile and Charles V showed. By the 17th century, however, it seemed wise for any candidate to possess an estate within the boundaries of the Empire: when the French weighed in 1648 whether to let Alsace remain within the Empire, it was because it might allow the king of France to be a candidate for the throne. Similarly, in 1737 the duke of Lorraine was allowed to retain the county of Falkenstein so as not to jeopardize his future candidacy (Schoell 1:151, 2:252).
The office was not hereditary, but elective. However, from 1453 to 1740, a Habsburg was always Emperor. The last Habsburg Charles VI died leaving only daughters, and the Elector of Bavaria was elected as Charles VII in 1742, but he died in 1745 and Charles VI's son-in-law Francis of Lorraine was elected emperor in 1745; until the end of the Empire in 1806, the imperial crown was in the Habsburg-Lorraine family.

Beginning and End of Reign

The reign began with the swearing of the Wahlkapitulation, or electoral capitulation, a kind of contract between the Emperor and the Empire. Even a minor could take the oath (as did the 12-year old Joseph I in 1690), although he also promised to renew his oath upon assuming power. This oath preceded the coronation, led by the archbishop of Mainz. The imperial cities took an oath of loyalty at the time of coronation, but not the states of the empire, since each took such an oath at the time they inherited their fief.
The reign ended by death, abdication (Charles V in 1555) or deposition of the emperor. The latter could be declared by the Reichstag, although earlier texts (Schwabenspiegel and Sachsenspiegel, as well as the Golden Bull c5, §3) speak of a jurisdiction of the Count Palatine of the Rhine over the emperor, which was never formally abolished.

Successors and Replacements: the King of the Romans, the Vicars of the Empire

When a successor was elected during the lifetime of the Emperor, he bore the title of King of the Romans (Rex Romanorum, römischer König).
The election of a successor in the lifetime of the empire was practised up to Frederic II's sons Heinrich in 1220 and Konrad in 1237. It was then abandoned except for Wenceslas in 1376. The Habsburgs resumed it, with Charles V's brother Ferdinand's election in 1531, followed by Maximilian II in 1562, Ferdinand III in 1636, Ferdinand IV in 1653 [who died before his father], and Joseph I in 1690.

The King of the Romans bore his arms on a shield on the breast of a single-headed eagle sable (as opposed to the double-headed eagle of the Emperor). He had royal rank and came immediately after the Emperor in precedence. He succeeded the emperor immediately, without need for another coronation or Wahlkapitulation, since he had already been crowned and sworn a capitulation at the time of his election. He also ruled the empire in case the emperor was incapacitated (as did Joseph I in the last days of his father's reign), but stayed out of the government of the empire otherwise, according to the oath he took upon election.

If no king of the Romans existed, and if either the Emperor was incapacitated or under age (sede pleana), or there was no emperor (sede vacante, case of an interregnum), the imperial authority was held jointly by two Imperial Vicars (Reichsvikarien), although exercised in the name of the emperor in the first case. By virtue of the Golden Bull, these were the Elector Palatine and the Elector of Saxony, and each had special authority over a part of the empire, depending on which type of law was in force: the Elector Palatine in regions of Franconian law (Franconia, Swabia, the Rhine, southern Germany), while the Elector of Saxony in regions of Saxon law (Saxony, Westphalia, northern Germany, Hannover). The boundaries between the two areas (particularly in Hesse, Julich, Cleve, Berg, Liége, Ostfriesland) were disputed until 1750, and some regions (Bohemia, Austria) did not recognize any vicar. In Italy, the titular vicar was the duke of Savoy.

In 1623 the Elector Palatine lost his electorship to Bavaria, and in 1648 a new electorship was created for him. Thereafter Bavaria and Pfalz were in dispute as to who was vicar. In the 1659 interregnum both claimed to be vicars and issued documents on that authority, but the arch-chancellor and the other vicar recognized Bavaria, as did emperor Leopold after his election. In 1724 a family pact between the two branches of the Wittelsbach family set forth joint exercise of the vicariate, but this was not accepted by the Reichstag. In 1745 the two branches agreed to alternate, with Bavaria starting first in the 1745 interregnum. This was accepted by Francis I after his election and by the electors, and later confirmed in 1752 by the Reichstag. In 1777 the Bavarian branch became extinct and the agreement moot.

The imperial vicars exercised the powers of the emperor that were not explicitly reserved to his person, and in doing so were bound by the terms of the deceased emperor's capitulation. They handled all matters of grace: legitimations, emancipations, privileges, ennoblements and titles, etc. They exercised the emperor's judicial powers, they collected taxes in his name, nominated to ecclesiastical benefices, and invested vassals with imperial fiefs, whether inherited or newly conceded (except for principalities and Fahnlehen). The emperor was formally obliged to ratify the acts of the vicars after his election, although there are instances of such acts being repealed by the Reichshofrat. The vicariate ended once the new emperor had sworn to uphold his electoral capitulation.

Household

The emperor was entitled to have a Household, a real one as well as one "for show" composed of the High Offices of the Empire (Erzämter, archiofficia). The four High Offices appear under the Ottonian dynasty: at the coronation of Otto I in 936, each of the Stammherzöge held one of the functions. The Golden Bull of 1356 assigned them to the lay electors (in fact, some electors may have become so because they were High Officers). After a new electorate was created for the count Palatine, a new office of Arch-Treasurer was created for him, in 1652. In 1706, after Bavaria was banned, the elector palatine resumed his office of Arch-Steward, and the office of Arch-Treasurer passed in 1710 to the newly created elector of Hanover. In 1714, Bavaria was reinstated, and the elector palatine resumed the office of Treasurer, but Hanover continued to use the title and augmentation of arms until the merger of the Bavarian and Palatine electorates in 1777 allowed Hanover to exercise the office. New offices were planned but never chosen for the electors created in 1803.

Powers

The powers of the Emperor were exercised in a broad range of areas, but restricted everywhere:
executive:
he enforced the laws and rulings of the empire, although most of this was delegated to the Reichskreise;
he appointed imperial officers;
legislative:
he could propose, approve and promulgate laws; in particular, he had the right to withhold approval;
but he could not levy taxes without approval
judiciary:
he was the ultimate judge in Germany, although he could only exercise this power through legally appointed courts, and had no right to intervene in the Reichskammergericht, but had in certain cases the final word in the Reichshofrat;
he had the right of pardon, as well as the right to confer exemptions and privileges (i.e., exceptions to the application of imperial laws);
international:
he alone represented the Empire abroad, although his ability to make war, peace and alliances was very limited;
feudal:
he was overlord of all imperial fiefs.
Jura reservata

The emperor had certain powers that flowed from his position as sovereign of the empire, from his plenitudo potestatis. Over time, this "plenitude of power" became restricted. By the 17th c., the powers of the emperor which were specifically his were called jura reservata or reserved rights; they were opposed to the powers of the Reichstag on one hand, the powers of the individual territories on the other.
The reserved rights were divided into the unrestricted (jura reservata illimita) and restricted (jura reservata limita) depending on whether the Reichstag was involved or not. They were also divided into exclusive (jura reservata exclusiva) or concurrent (jura reservata communia), depending on whether the individual territories also enjoyed those rights or not.

Examples of such imperial powers include:

jura reservata illimita + exclusiva: ennoblement and conferral of titles, foundation of universities
jura reservata limita: imposition of tolls, leasing of mints
jura reservata communia: grant legal majority, legitimize children, appoint notaries, grant arms
The emperor delegated the exercise of these rights to officials called counts palatine (Hofpfalzgrafen). Such delegated powers were called comitiva, and distinguished into the comitiva minor (power to grant majority, legitimize, appoint notaries, grant arms) and comitiva major (ennoblement and power to delegate the comitiva minor). The comitiva minor was commonly bestowed to rulers of territories or titular counts, as well as attached to certain positions (such as provosts of universities). The comitiva major was rarely bestowed, and it was hereditary in the houses of Pfalz and Schwarzburg.


Now as we can see, even a weakish Emperor is a pretty powerful super executive. And a sizable chunk of the powers were already gone or restricted by the Golden Bull in 1356, but enough of it remains to be a force to be reckoned with.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Still, even if the Wittelsbachs has monopoly on the Imperial throne, the Habsburgs in Swabia and the Luxembourgs in Bohemia would want to controll their ow´n territorial states within the HRE with as little as possible Imperial meddling. Also the Hansa would not be a fan of the Emperor trying to increase his influence. Sure, we can have a "creation of the German Empire" event if the Emperor become uberpowerful, but it should fire late in game. Even though the Wittelsbachs are the undesputed emperors, they would not be able to take controll of all Germany. When the reformation begin the protestants would take distance from the Emperor and seek support from the Duke of Swabia, the most powerful protestantic prince in the Realm.

 

[unmerged(30761)]

If there is no Papal States, there is no Pope per se (the wandering Papacy idea from IIRC AGCEEP not withstanding), and therefore no excesses to rebel against. In the case of Aberration I would posit that there is a very, very good chance of instead of a Protestant movement you would see a swing towards Orthodoxy as the desires expressed by Luther for the most part were closer to it then not. With a strong Orthodox Byzantium still in existence and active there may be a bit of play there.

The scripting would be key here and it would be very easy to overplay it. The Emperor should be given a couple of early events at the start of the reformation that will set the early tone: Crush it, or not to crush it, with an intermediary step or two for the tentative player. And there needs to be an event string for BYZ to exploit and possibly influence (and conversely be influenced BY) the reformation towards a more Orthodox view of things.

Damn that is a sweet idea.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Still, even if the Wittelsbachs has monopoly on the Imperial throne, the Habsburgs in Swabia and the Luxembourgs in Bohemia would want to controll their ow´n territorial states within the HRE with as little as possible Imperial meddling. Also the Hansa would not be a fan of the Emperor trying to increase his influence. Sure, we can have a "creation of the German Empire" event if the Emperor become uberpowerful, but it should fire late in game. Even though the Wittelsbachs are the undesputed emperors, they would not be able to take controll of all Germany. When the reformation begin the protestants would take distance from the Emperor and seek support from the Duke of Swabia, the most powerful protestantic prince in the Realm.

Well they may wish to but they are also thwarted by the nature of the Empire. Although they do have the right to make alliances with foreigners and to legislate to a degree (both of which are powers that evolve over the span of the game, in 1419 not so much, by 1648 most definitly), they are still subjects OF the empire. They are bound by laws, traditions and tied to the Emperor through the same.

It is not so much the Emperor INCREASING his power as him NOT losing it over time as was done IRL! The position of the Emperor dwindled in power from 1419-1648 and with that dwindling the ties that bound the empire together grew thinner and thinner. Until by 1648 the Empire was a loose confederation of virtually independent and totally sovereign states.

In 1419 however that was not the case.

How did it become the case is the question! The answer to it is the Imperial capitualation, which is an oath written up by the electors that the Emperor is required to ascede to as part of the investiture process. You can not be crowned unless you do so, and as a result of the circumstances of the RL HRE it was used to erode the power of the Emperor and the cohesiveness of the State.

By being the defacto Emperors by virtue of controlling the majority of the electoral votes, the usage of the capitualation to erode the HRE into practical irrelevency as a nation is slowed if not stopped entirely!

The HRE started strong and grew weaker, not the opposite. The Aberration HRE has no means by which to erode as much or as fast as it would be silly in the extreme to assume that the Wittelsbachs would cut their own gonads off with a rusty spoon.

As such you retain a strong Emperor and with it a strong State.

And even during the reformation and subsequent wars, the RL emperor and empire were not something that was being fought to get away from, but rather to ensure certain rights within! It was not until much later in the life of the weakened RL HRE that it became conceivable for the member states and nobles to break away from the Empire. It would have been as foreign a concept to them at the time of the reformation to leave the empire as it would be for us to consider breathing battery acid.

 

[Incompetent]

In theory the Emperor had a whole load of powers. So does the Queen of the UK. But in practice emperors had to be pragmatic in the use of their powers, because they relied on the active cooperation of their vassals to actually carry out many military or administrative plans.

Such tensions existed in hereditary feudal monarchies like France as well, so even if the electoral system were in the hands of one family, absolute power would not be a given. While the Emperor might not have to formally renounce powers over time, informally many of them would be seldom used, and every so often an Emperor would do something which had become 'not customary' and realise why he had to exercise discretion. I think this ambiguous state of affairs would persist until a great crisis gripped the Empire, which would force it to go one way or another. In a way the Hundred Years' War made France as a unified state, while the Thirty Years' War broke the HRE; how Aberration's crisis plays out will depend on the players.

 

[unmerged(16159)]

Well they may wish to but they are also thwarted by the nature of the Empire. Although they do have the right to make alliances with foreigners and to legislate to a degree (both of which are powers that evolve over the span of the game, in 1419 not so much, by 1648 most definitly), they are still subjects OF the empire. They are bound by laws, traditions and tied to the Emperor through the same.

It is not so much the Emperor INCREASING his power as him NOT losing it over time as was done IRL! The position of the Emperor dwindled in power from 1419-1648 and with that dwindling the ties that bound the empire together grew thinner and thinner. Until by 1648 the Empire was a loose confederation of virtually independent and totally sovereign states.

In 1419 however that was not the case.

How did it become the case is the question! The answer to it is the Imperial capitualation, which is an oath written up by the electors that the Emperor is required to ascede to as part of the investiture process. You can not be crowned unless you do so, and as a result of the circumstances of the RL HRE it was used to erode the power of the Emperor and the cohesiveness of the State.

By being the defacto Emperors by virtue of controlling the majority of the electoral votes, the usage of the capitualation to erode the HRE into practical irrelevency as a nation is slowed if not stopped entirely!

The HRE started strong and grew weaker, not the opposite. The Aberration HRE has no means by which to erode as much or as fast as it would be silly in the extreme to assume that the Wittelsbachs would cut their own gonads off with a rusty spoon.

As such you retain a strong Emperor and with it a strong State.

And even during the reformation and subsequent wars, the RL emperor and empire were not something that was being fought to get away from, but rather to ensure certain rights within! It was not until much later in the life of the weakened RL HRE that it became conceivable for the member states and nobles to break away from the Empire. It would have been as foreign a concept to them at the time of the reformation to leave the empire as it would be for us to consider breathing battery acid.

Thanks for this Bob, it's clarified a lot for me. Nice to see you back Incompetent.

1. So suddenly, with a stronger HRE and a fractured Italian peninsular, perhaps the Emperor might look to reasserting itself in Italy, even to the extent of selecting the pope?

2. Perhaps this runs in parallel with the Orthodox church becoming stronger. Hungary go orthodox, perhaps, and rather than a protestant reformation it's and orthodox one?

Or is that too far fetched?

3. There has been much discussion about rendering Swabia as a Major, not a Minor, and as such I have been writing it's events with that in mind. In terms of game balance, and MP play, how do we see a strong HRE dominated by Bavaria?

If they claim a unified Germania, does Swabia exclude itself for political motives, or does it need a religious impulse to do something that drastic? Or does the Germania option only occur for Bavaria if there is a true vacuum, ie Swabia have moved to Milan, and Hansa lose Koln?

 

[MattyG]

Great discussions. Love it.

But to put you all more-or-less on notice, the final plausible storyline you come up with must not involve the emergence of a large, stable united German reich/empire before the end of the Reformation.

The key word there is stable. I can accept what bobtdwarf says about the control the Wittelsbachs enjoyed and his points about the catholic faith being under siege, but I also know that the game will lose its focus and balance if the HRE-based country that emerges in the early 1400s is stable.

Big countries have been rent apart by feuding, jealousy and competing nobles before: Germany should be no different. If this Dennis forms, it will, must, must be broken up by some equally-plausible series of events driven by fractious and ambitious individuals and families. Think China in vanilla. A Player could keep it together, but only in SP.

Matty

 

[Incompetent]

Thanks for this Bob, it's clarified a lot for me. Nice to see you back Incompetent.

1. So suddenly, with a stronger HRE and a fractured Italian peninsular, perhaps the Emperor might look to reasserting itself in Italy, even to the extent of selecting the pope?

There are lots of other factions competing for control of the Papacy, but certainly Bavaria could be involved. Imperial Italy is also pretty hotly contested already, as it's a major focus for Swabia and Genoa, and Hungary, Savoy and Sicily are likely to want a piece of the action too. With such big players, the Emperor might not be able to exert too much control. On the other hand, the Low Countries will probably retain a strong Imperial character for longer than they did in real life.

2. Perhaps this runs in parallel with the Orthodox church becoming stronger. Hungary go orthodox, perhaps, and rather than a protestant reformation it's and orthodox one?

Or is that too far fetched?

It's an interesting idea, but it would need a story to justify it. Also, what effect will this have on Hungary's relations with its neighbours, particularly Byzantium?

3. There has been much discussion about rendering Swabia as a Major, not a Minor, and as such I have been writing it's events with that in mind. In terms of game balance, and MP play, how do we see a strong HRE dominated by Bavaria?

Swabia is nominally loyal to Bavaria, but the Habsburgs are the strongest and most autonomous of the non-Imperial dynasties. Swabia is also likely to expand south of the Alps, where Imperial power is much weaker (how much power does Bavaria have over Genoa and the like?) If there's a general revolt against the Emperor by his vassals, I suspect the Habsburgs would assume a leadership role in the anti-Wittelsbach forces.

If they claim a unified Germania, does Swabia exclude itself for political motives, or does it need a religious impulse to do something that drastic? Or does the Germania option only occur for Bavaria if there is a true vacuum, ie Swabia have moved to Milan, and Hansa lose Koln?

The Wittelsbachs would likely not make proclamations of that nature, as they're already Kings of Germany. What might happen instead is a polarisation between areas where the Emperor can and now does stamp his authority firmly and stably, and powerful independent states which largely stop listening to the Emperor altogether, though the Emperor might still claim lordship. If Bavaria is successful, the 'core' Imperial domain where the Emperor held sway would probably cover:

- All of modern Germany minus Baden-Wurttemburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, part of North Rhein-Westphalia, northern Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein
- part of the Low Countries
- the Sudetenland

The remaining HRE territory would typically be dominated by Swabia/KoI and Genoa, in the southwest, Burgundy in the west, the Hansa in the north, the TO in the northeast and Hungary in the southeast. Of course, how much power Bavaria has over these majors is another matter.

That's a lot, but it's much less than the full HRE, and also if this new Germany is forged in a devastating war, it won't be as insanely rich as it is in 1419. Such an aggressive Bavaria is unlikely to be a major coloniser either.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Thanks for this Bob, it's clarified a lot for me. Nice to see you back Incompetent.

1. So suddenly, with a stronger HRE and a fractured Italian peninsular, perhaps the Emperor might look to reasserting itself in Italy, even to the extent of selecting the pope?

2. Perhaps this runs in parallel with the Orthodox church becoming stronger. Hungary go orthodox, perhaps, and rather than a protestant reformation it's and orthodox one?

Or is that too far fetched?

3. There has been much discussion about rendering Swabia as a Major, not a Minor, and as such I have been writing it's events with that in mind. In terms of game balance, and MP play, how do we see a strong HRE dominated by Bavaria?

If they claim a unified Germania, does Swabia exclude itself for political motives, or does it need a religious impulse to do something that drastic? Or does the Germania option only occur for Bavaria if there is a true vacuum, ie Swabia have moved to Milan, and Hansa lose Koln?

Well lets deal with the last part first and move backwards...

Koln was a member of the Hansa, which was as allowed by Imperial law a trade union. Its' membership does not change who actually RULED Koln and that was the Prince-Bishop. The Hansa really are a non factor in the equation as powerful and as rich as they may be they really are not, nor would not be a rival capable of drawing enough support away from the emperor. The Hansa need to be represented in the game I suppose just because of the wealth that they had, but as a nation they fall horribly short of the definition even by the standards of the middle ages. And with them being controlled by common guildsmen and tradesmen they would upset the applecart of the nobility to much to be a viable alternate power center.

Besides they would be much more motivated to keep the Empire and Emperor as strong as they can as it gives them a big nasty bear to fall back upon if things get ugly. Invading the Hansa is invading the HRE and that brings the Imperial army out to play.

Swabia has a few of the same problems, but some strengths that the Hansa lack. If we follow the example of RL history the HRE was willing to let the Swiss Cantons go even though they were traditionally part of the empire. Swabia could plausibly follow the same route and for about the same reasons: To much trouble to conquer for the costs involved.

They have a tight rope to walk as would any member state of the empire; there is only so forceful one can be in opposing your overlord without cutting your own throat. Swabia is therefore left with a choice: Be good members of the empire or seek independance as it will become clear that they stand not a chance in hell of getting elected Emperor.

This may tend to mimic the impetus that many of the smaller German states fealt when they dropped their membership in the empire and joined the confederation of the Rhine during the Napoleonic wars. Ambition and ego must find and outlet even if that outlet is treason.

Your point 1.) is a real possibility. If the Empire is as strong in Aberrations 1419 as it was in ours and it retains that strength over time and mayhaps adds to it; you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be looking to reclaim lost territory and reasert dominion over traditional territories that are drifting from orbit. So I can see them making sure that imperial authority is respected in Italy very soon followed by attempting to reclaim the lost portions of the Empire in Southern France.

This may not necessarily lead to conflict with Savoy though. There should be an event sting or two that gives the players some choices: Be forceful or be clever, or attempt to be both. The clever version would be inducing the King of Savoy to step back into the loving embrace of the Empire by doing things like naming him Vicar of Italy and possibly an elector. That would tie him into the HRE again increase his prestige and somewhat strengthen his hand in France etc. Something similar should be tried with Burgandy as they to were loosely tied to the Empire.

Now considering in real history the Dukes of Savoy were strongish supporters of the Empire and that the Kings of Italy were extremely proud of their Imperial titles... I could see it going the same way mostly in Aberration if they are sweet talked and thrown a cooky or twelve.

I don't think that the Emperor would have much use in picking the Pope, he was pretty much immune in the early years of the game from the rulings of the Pope, and could and did appoint his own bishops etc. But then again... It is not so much about practical concerns as much as ego in this case. And that would lead to a probable yes.

As far as I am aware the game still starts with more then one Pope but I am not sure of that. If there is an anti-Pope or two out there as there was IRL then the Emperor would find it probably to big a temptation not to intercede and make a pet of the Pope. If successful I could see an ambitious Prince attempting to use the Papal office to justify a forced reunification of the Empire of Charlemagne and once more become Emperor of the West.

Which brings up a point. We are not just talking about a unified German state when we are talking about the HRE. Germany was just the biggest part of it. And that biggest part was once just a portion of even greater whole that with France a puppy pile of successor states two of which have some ties to the Empire, would be a great temptation to put back together again and thwart the expansion of the Infidel in Spain.

2.) I really could not see Hungary going Orthodox. St. Stephen and the whole apostolic king thing really ties them to Rome pretty strongly for much of the early game. But that is not to say that the idea of the reformation taking a distinctly orthodox turn would not change that! A strong Eastern church that is in many ways an example of the kind of thing that Luther was talking about would be an easy outlet for some of the religious fervor. Especially if that Eastern Church had been influenced at all by the renaisance (which it likely would have been to a far greater degree in this world then in ours). There should probably be an event string that has BYZ making a few choices that will influence that outcome as well as possibly affecting how the Eastern Church does things.

Imagine if you will an Anglican style Protestant church based not on the Catholic model but rather on the Eastern Orthodox one. The tough part would be coming up with a way of representing this cross polinated faith as it would not truly be Orthodox as it is defined in the early game, nor would it be truly Lutheran etc.

3.) Now that is a good question and one I don't have a really great answer to right now.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Great discussions. Love it.

But to put you all more-or-less on notice, the final plausible storyline you come up with must not involve the emergence of a large, stable united German reich/empire before the end of the Reformation.

The key word there is stable. I can accept what bobtdwarf says about the control the Wittelsbachs enjoyed and his points about the catholic faith being under siege, but I also know that the game will lose its focus and balance if the HRE-based country that emerges in the early 1400s is stable.

Big countries have been rent apart by feuding, jealousy and competing nobles before: Germany should be no different. If this Dennis forms, it will, must, must be broken up by some equally-plausible series of events driven by fractious and ambitious individuals and families. Think China in vanilla. A Player could keep it together, but only in SP.

Matty

Actually that is kind of easy to do.

If the unification event fires have the various members join (they would have precious little legit reason not to), but do not give the HRE cores on the provinces.

The games built in mechanism for revolts and nationalist independence movements will do a nice job of making sure the whole shooting match is not totally stable. Plus the hit on income and manpower for not being a core will keep the HRE weaker. Post reformation you can start adding in the cores.

Now to encourage the game to spring forth revolters instead of upping the RR as would normally be done there is another way that makes sense considering the actions involved in the event: Adapting the AGCEEP unification sequence but instead of DE-centralizing it should ADD centralization (since the Emperor is consolidating power). This will increase the odds of revolts of the various provinces nicely. And given that the amount of BB you are going to suck up in the unification event, it is going to give you some of the random naughty boy events that usually hash up your nice little country.

 

[Incompetent]

There are good storyline justifications for a powerful Bavaria. But Aberration II is meant to be a 'functional' mod, as MattyG has said. One of the balance principles is that, while we can't stop ambitious players going on an annexing spree, we won't feed such an empire with cores, cultures and inheritances past a certain limit.

As such a 'legitimate' empire of Charlemagne is out of the question, and even a country covering the HRE is beyond what would normally be catered for by events, given the wealth of the provinces in question.

The fringes of the HRE are home to the capitals of 5 Aberration majors IIRC (not counting Bavaria), maybe 6 if we make Bohemia a major. It's pretty crowded, and almost inevitable that 1 or 2 won't survive. But if more than a couple get gobbled up by a single power, however it happens, the balance will likely be broken, as even if they later revolt away, they're never going to recover major status under AI control.

The challenge here for us is similar to that of Byzantium or the Caliphate: in theory, all these powers have claims to large areas of land, too large to be balanced. So we say instead that they only have the strength diplomatically and internally to pursue some of these claims, so eg Byzantium can happily go east or go for Italy, but if it tries both the internal costs will outweigh the benefits. Similarly I think Bavaria should be able to continue to have a loose hold over the whole HRE, or get a tight hold over a large part of the HRE, but if it tries to rule the lot as if it were an absolute monarchy, it's going to be in for a world of hurt, as neither neighbouring majors and the princes of the HRE would stand for it.

 

[MattyG]

Incompetant, its nice to have your eloquent and rational writing back into the dabates on the forum.

The second issue is how this Dennis will look. The functional aspect of the game requires a number of states that are playable in a multiplayer environment. It's abit different with Cordoba, Byzantium and the Caliphate, as these actually would be smaller at the start than the pan-German state, plus they are on the fringes, surrounded by poorer provinces, further from the heartland of European wealth and manpower. If we start such a nation in 1419 then there is really only one selectable country. If Dennis forms soon afterwards, than presumably anyone playing Bohemia, Swabia, Hansa etc would get a quick Game Over when Dennis forms. Either option provides for little gaming interest if one is playing in that region and not playing Bavaria.

From a gaming perspective, the plausible-history aspect that involves an Imperial Dennis ruled by the Wittelsbachs might be instead that it formed earlier, in about 1395, in art a response to the collapse of France and the additional power-vacuum created to the west. However, by 1419 the powerful emperor who formed Dennis has been superceded by someone with both more ambition and less ability. The wars of revolt have just started and Dennis is splintering.

Accordingly, we have the premise for players to take on different nations. We have our premise for the Hansas existence as instead a nation, not merely a collection of semi-independent tax-paying cities. We have a premise for Bavaria weakened in the first 40 years, rather than blobbing uncontrollably. And we have a challenging scenario for a solo player taking on the Japan of Europe as it tries to hold it all together.

Matty

 

[unmerged(16159)]

I think it's also important to look at the Bavarian history as a cycle of strong and weak leadership in the same way we have written the storyline for most other majors. Hansa have a burst of growth until 1529 and then begin a slow decline. Swabia start slowly, but begin a phase of strong leadership at the begingin of the 1500s. Like a series of offset sine curves, each state rises and falls at different times.

Bavaria start strong, and perhaps we retain this. Perhaps they are given the the opportunity to grow even stronger early, to match their impressive list of monarchs and leaders. By 1440, if they own most of southern germany and remain Emperor, a series of events fire which allow the Bavarians to slowly increase their constitutional hold over the HRE.

(This in itself, might then mean the end of the Holy Roman Empire as a formal entity, with the Emperor abandoning the connections with the Italian peninsular and role as formal defender of the catholic state. maybe, maybe not..?)

By 1480 they have the final option to unite their various Vassals under a single banner, and Bavaria becomes Dennis. Neighbouring Minors rush to join for fear of being left out of the Empire. I can see us allowing a state of 20+ provinces existing for a short time, until....

The 1520s, with the onset of the Reformation, some of the neighbouring majors take on Protestantism in order to find some power and cohesion to rival that of the Dennisians. The Dennis Peasant Rebellions trigger Civil wars, which runs to newly independant states all over germany, and Dennis fractures if not handled properly.

Within that there is still the possibility of Dennis declaring a Crusade, as a dramatic gesture to enlist aid from Hungary and Poland and The Order, but the victory conditions for this crusade are not conquest but survival. To last until 1628 with 10 Provs should be considered a victory.

This also triggers the beginning of Dennisian decline, or Bavarian if they chose to reform their past glory. This is the bottoming out of the Bavarian fall, while Swabia and Hungary are in the ascendant. 80 years later and they rise again, but that's another story.

Just an idea.

 

[unmerged(16159)]

Koln was a member of the Hansa, which was as allowed by Imperial law a trade union. Its' membership does not change who actually RULED Koln and that was the Prince-Bishop. The Hansa really are a non factor in the equation as powerful and as rich as they may be they really are not, nor would not be a rival capable of drawing enough support away from the emperor. The Hansa need to be represented in the game I suppose just because of the wealth that they had, but as a nation they fall horribly short of the definition even by the standards of the middle ages. And with them being controlled by common guildsmen and tradesmen they would upset the applecart of the nobility to much to be a viable alternate power center.

Besides they would be much more motivated to keep the Empire and Emperor as strong as they can as it gives them a big nasty bear to fall back upon if things get ugly. Invading the Hansa is invading the HRE and that brings the Imperial army out to play.

You make a fair point about the viability of the Hanseatic League as a state, even in Aberration II. But it's there, and the rationale is reasonably sound, particularly due to their wealth, their perceived neutrality, the potential power of their Verhansung (economic sanctions), and the fractured nature of the politics in Aberrated Germany, British Isles, Scandinavia and France. The events leading up to it's creation are deliberately placed in-game to provide some of the colour and reason for it's existence.

But I do think we need to reassess it's status within the HRE. I wonder whether - like the Swiss - they are allowed to, or even choose to exist outside the HRE to maintain a neutral role to gain trading status, but therefore lose some diplomatic status. (Perhaps also extra BB if they DoW anyone!)

And Koln? Perhaps events see it flick in and out of independence, perhaps existing with Hansa initially, then more in control of the HRE as Bavaria get stronger, perhaps back into the League if Bavaria look frail and the HRE weaker.

Swabia has a few of the same problems, but some strengths that the Hansa lack. If we follow the example of RL history the HRE was willing to let the Swiss Cantons go even though they were traditionally part of the empire. Swabia could plausibly follow the same route and for about the same reasons: To much trouble to conquer for the costs involved.

They have a tight rope to walk as would any member state of the empire; there is only so forceful one can be in opposing your overlord without cutting your own throat. Swabia is therefore left with a choice: Be good members of the empire or seek independance as it will become clear that they stand not a chance in hell of getting elected Emperor.

This may tend to mimic the impetus that many of the smaller German states fealt when they dropped their membership in the empire and joined the confederation of the Rhine during the Napoleonic wars. Ambition and ego must find and outlet even if that outlet is treason.

Part of the issue here is that in IRL and AbeII what we understand as Swabia was actually half of the Habsburg family, so they had a lot of ego and respect for the HRE as an institution, but perhaps also a real reason for wanting to stay in the HRE to see their claims to Bohemia and Styria continue to be legitimised. The choice to stay or go represents whether they think they will reunite the family, and whether Bavaria will let it.

After Sigismund dies, there is no heir, other than (in AbeII) an illegitimate son, and the player has a choice to end the Habsburg line in Swabia and forego all claims to Styria and other Habsburg lands. They could go to Milan, or bury themselves deeper in Swabia, and with the onset of the Reformation leave the HRE.

Maybe.