• 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.
depending on the tags you can use I have the main Chinese warlord states here, if you want to use them...as well as their ruler

An-Fu Clique = ?
Kuomincun Clique = Feng Yu Hsaing
Kuomintang Clique = Sun Yat sen and Chiang Kai Shek
League of 5 Provinces = Sun Ch'uang-fang
Chihli Clique = Wu Pei-fu and Tsao-Lun
Fengtien Clique = Chang Tso-Lin
 
Allenby said:
This issue is settled. See post #41 for reference. :).

Well, let me point out that StephenT offered an alternative assessment. I believe his is more accurate.

Then you are somewhat coloured by a German 'worldview', or rather, viewing Germany through rose-tinted spectacles. Germany was a military autocracy and is fully deserving of being placed three notches from full authoritarianism - it was not in the middle of the road between democracy and autocracy..

Germany, a military autocracy in 1914?!? No way. It was a constitutional monarchy. I suggest you check out Gordon Craig's assessment on the subject - arguably one of the most authorative non-German historians on the subject.

As you know, the Kaiser appointed a Chancellor and could sack him; the Chancellor was able to preside over an impotent Reichstag, and wasn't answerable to it. The Reichstag (Even when the Social Democrats held a third of it) acquiesced in the Chancellor's dominance;.

The Reichstag was not impotent. You might compare it with the present Assemblée Nationale in France. As Craig argues, it was not the Reichstag's actual powers but the modesty and lacking assertiveness of the parliamentarians that limited its role. That said, it was still quite powerful. Along your lines of argument, the US Congress would have to equally be considered impotent. After all, it doesn't elect the US President...

Ministers were not elected officials; service heads were directly answerable to the Kaiser; the prerogative for foreign policy and war making lay with the Chancellor and Kaiser (and unofficially, the armed forces)..

Well, doesn't mean the Reichstag had no influence on such matters (the SPD thumbs up in 1914 was entirely crucial, for one). But yes, it was mainly concerned with budgetary powers and domestic issues. However, that does not make it impotent.

Further, an autocracy limits its citizens liberties. Germany was pretty liberal in that regard.

The predictable charge that I am biased because I am a Briton won't do. Germany was an autocracy, and most people will agree with me.

Oh yeah? Gordon Craig for one doesn't agree with you. He has a far more differntiated outlook. (BTW, I'm half-British myself). And StephenT also took a different view. I think you're overly rash in setting aside such views.

That said, later in the war, Ludendorff and Hindenburg did gain extraordinary powers (even sidelining the Emperor). But the political regime of 1917 was not that of 1914. For 1917 your assessment might be correct, but for 1914, I believe you're on the wrong track.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming Germany was a parliamentarian monarchy or such (and I'm not interested in "my country was more democratic than yours" pettiness - just in an accurate portrayal of the times). There was a great difference between Russia's political regime and that of Germany in 1914. You should take account of that.
 
Clemens August said:
Well, let me point out that StephenT offered an alternative assessment. I believe his is more accurate.

Eh? :confused: #41 is a summing up of how to model democratic states. The second alternative was voted for.

Are we looking at different threads? :rofl:


Clemens August said:
Germany, a military autocracy in 1914?!? No way. It was a constitutional monarchy. I suggest you check out Gordon Craig's assessment on the subject - arguably one of the most authorative non-German historians on the subject.

I cannot say that I have heard of him - do tell me where I can find his material!


Clemens August said:
The Reichstag was not impotent. You might compare it with the present Assemblée Nationale in France. As Craig argues, it was not the Reichstag's actual powers but the modesty and lacking assertiveness of the parliamentarians that limited its role.

...thereby investing vast powers in unelected and almost unaccountable institutions.


Clemens August said:
Further, an autocracy limits its citizens liberties. Germany was pretty liberal in that regard.

I absolutely agree - that's why it has a high 'open society' rating.


Clemens August said:
There was a great difference between Russia's political regime and that of Germany in 1914. You should take account of that.

Very well - Germany shall have a democratic rating of four, but no higher.
 
Allenby said:
I cannot say that I have heard of him - do tell me where I can find his material!

He's arguably the most authorative non-German historian on 19th and 20th century German history. His books have been incredibly influential. Check out German History 1866-1945. A standard work and classic. Much like Golo Mann's excellent German History.

Originally Posted by Clemens August
The Reichstag was not impotent. You might compare it with the present Assemblée Nationale in France. As Craig argues, it was not the Reichstag's actual powers but the modesty and lacking assertiveness of the parliamentarians that limited its role.

...thereby investing vast powers in unelected and almost unaccountable institutions.

The point is that the Reichstag deputies did not make as effective use of their powers than they could have - as Craig argues. It was by no means impotent. And its political influence was considerable - even in areas in which it had limited say. Ain't for nothing that Bismarck collapsed in parliament when August Bebel got into a swing (just a tidbit I just heard on the radio).

Very well - Germany shall have a democratic rating of four, but no higher.

That seems to me a quite good estimate. I liked StephenT's list in post #27, where he rates it as such. And I like the list as a whole (though I've very little of an idea in how authoritarian/democratic say Luxemburg or Bulgaria were compared to France/Britain/Germany/Russia and the like). I think StephenT is entirely right in rating France higher than Britain, for that matter. Just think of the great ideological reluctance and pangs of conscience of both Russia and France allying with another... And Britain had a very powerful House of Lords until 1911, less so thereafter, but still it was of greater consequence than it is today.
 
I've been doing some reading on Sanusia, and it seems that we've shortchanged them in TGW. :)

First, a country description:

The Sanusi (or Senussi) Religious Order was founded by the noted Islamic religious scholar Mahommed ben Ali ben es Senussi in 1835. At its height in the 1880s, the order controlled most of the interior of North Africa and dominated the north-south trade routes across the Sahara. However, after a confrontation with the Ottoman government in 1894 sheik Senussi el Mahdi withdrew his headquarters to the remote oasis of Kufra, safe from outside interference. The last twenty years have seen the Order's influence shrink as the British and French extend their colonial power into areas once dominated by the Sanusi. In 1911 came a greater blow: the Italian war with the Ottoman Empire. The Italians quickly occupied the major Turkish ports in North Africa, but were unable to penetrate far inland. Nevertheless, the peace treaty of 1912 handed the whole area over to Italy. The undefeated Turkish troops in the region, unwilling to surrender, defected en masse to the Sanusi, bringing with them a nucleus of trained troops and modern weapons including artillery. In November 1912 the Sanusi leader Ahmad ash-Sharif swore to drive out the Italians and restore Muslim rule to the whole of Libya. Maps printed in Europe may show a vast Italian-controlled empire in North Africa; but at the start of 1914 the reality is that the Italians are now hemmed into a narrow coastal strip by the Senusi army. Will the forces of Islam be able to drive the Europeans into the sea? Or will the greater technological might of Italy and their divide-and-conquer tactics weaken the Sanusi forces and lead to their ultimate defeat?

Second, an OOB. In August 1914 they apparently had no fewer than 14 brigades (7 divisions) of troops! These included the Fezzan and Riyah cavalry brigades, and the Jofra, Sirti, two Fezzan, two Riyah and six Tripolitanian infantry brigades. I suggest representing these as a cavalry division (Fezzan/Riyah Division), 1890 Infantry Division (Jofra/Sirti Division), three 1860 Militia Divisions (Fezzan Division, Riyah Division, Tripolitania Division) and two 1890 Garrison Divisions (2nd and 3rd Tripolitania Divisions).

Italy, incidentally, had the following troops in Libya, which ! don't think are in their current TGW OOB:

Libia Division (1912 Light Infantry with attached brigade - artillery, heavy weapons, something like that. Elite.) In Tripoli.
Taranto and Udine Brigades (combine them into one 1895 Infantry division) In Homs.
Tripolitania Division (1900 Militia division - native levies) In Zuara.
Regio Corpo dell Truppe Coloniali della Tripolitania (1890 Light Infantry Division). 50% strength, 15% organisation. In Socna.
Regio Corpo dell Truppe Coloniali della Cyrenaica (1890 Light Infantry Division). In Bengazi.
Possibly a garrison unit in Derna or Tobruk.

Finally, borders. I'd give them the following in 1914: (Italy and Britain should have claims over their respective Sanusi-held territory).

sanusi1.jpg


By 1916 the Sanusi held all of the following, after inflicting several defeats on the Italians, driving them back to the coast, and expanding into the French Sudan:

sanusi2.jpg


I'd give them claims over all the provinces occupied plus all bordering provinces except that British one in northern Nigeria and the Quattara Depression in Egypt. I'm not sure what to do about the Tuareg tribes in Air: from what I can see, they were subdued and garrisoned by the French in 1914 but rose up as allies of the Sanusi in 1916. In which case, I think representing Air as independent in 1914 isn't accurate; instead the province should be French but with a high resistance factor. The same goes for all the non-coastal provinces of Morocco, incidentally.
 
Woah the hidden powerhouse of Northern Africa. How might I ask are they going to supply those seven divisions? AFAIK there are no industry in those provinces so it could be a bit troublesome, not to mention do we need to add manpower and other resources?
 
They apparently did have enough manufacturing capability to keep themselves supplied with ammunition and other necessities; plus they had the munitions brought over by the Turks (who also kept on smuggling in resources even after the nominal peace treaty); and finally, they used a lot of captured Italian supplies.

I suggest a 1 IC factory, 0.5 rares, 1 metal and 2 energy at Kufra, plus enough stockpiled supplies to keep them going for a couple of years. Also, put some supply stockpiles in Italian provinces that they can capture. :)
 
What made me angry in TGW for HOI1 was that fact,that some german provinces wasnt german.Metz should be german,it was part of Elsaß-Lothringen.Torun(german name:Thorn)and Czestochow(german name:Tschenstochau)were german,too.And Austria-Hungary should get Cracow(german name:Krakau)because they had it in 1914.
 
KingMississippi said:
I think he is saying that the Senussi took over all but a little of Italian Libya by 1916. The first map would be libya in 1914
Exactly. (Although the Senussi would argue that it wasn't Italian Libya at all; they were there first. :) )

Once war in Europe broke out, the Italian government abandoned its troops in Africa to their fate and stopped sending them any reinforcements. Once Italy joined the Entente, the Sanusi also invaded British and French territory, but those countries did send reinforcements, and by late 1917 had driven the Sanusi back inside so-called "Italian" territory. At which point they stopped, not wanting to help the Italians out too much. :)

Once WW1 was over, in 1919, Italy sent 80,000 battle-hardened troops to Libya for some payback. :eek: Even so, it was 1937 before the last Senussi troops surrendered... and five years later Italy lost ontrol of Libya again to the British 8th Army. :rolleyes:
 
MB15 said:
What made me angry in TGW for HOI1 was that fact,that some german provinces wasnt german.Metz should be german,it was part of Elsaß-Lothringen.Torun(german name:Thorn)and Czestochow(german name:Tschenstochau)were german,too.And Austria-Hungary should get Cracow(german name:Krakau)because they had it in 1914.

There were valid reasons for this, do a search in TGW forum (see my sig for a link) on borders for answers to your demands.
 
MB15 said:
What made me angry in TGW for HOI1 was that fact,that some german provinces wasnt german.Metz should be german,it was part of Elsaß-Lothringen.Torun(german name:Thorn)and Czestochow(german name:Tschenstochau)were german,too.And Austria-Hungary should get Cracow(german name:Krakau)because they had it in 1914.
If you're really angry about this, perhaps you should take it up with Paradox, not us. They were the ones who drew the province borders on the map...

The HoI province called Metz covers the lands between the rivers Moselle and Meuse, and includes such important locations as Verdun, St Mihiel and Longwy. The city of Metz, which was indeed German in 1914, is right on the easternmost border of the province.

So would you really give the province containing Verdun to Germany in January 1914?

Similar arguments apply to all the other provinces you list. Our decision was - and is - to match the historical borders as closely as possible, and if necessary, rename provinces instead...
 
“Then you are somewhat coloured by a German 'world view', or rather, viewing Germany through rose-tinted spectacles. Germany was a military autocracy and is fully deserving of being placed three notches from full authoritarianism - it was not in the middle of the road between democracy and autocracy. As you know, the Kaiser appointed a Chancellor and could sack him; the Chancellor was able to preside over an impotent Reichstag, and wasn't answerable to it. The Reichstag (Even when the Social Democrats held a third of it) acquiesced in the Chancellor's dominance; Ministers were not elected officials; service heads were directly answerable to the Kaiser; the prerogative for foreign policy and war making lay with the Chancellor and Kaiser (and unofficially, the armed forces).

The predictable charge that I am biased because I am a Briton won't do. Germany was an autocracy, and most people will agree with me.”

At the risk of being blunt it seems your grossly overgeneralizing Imperial Germany and it seems your doing so from a Modernistic standpoint. Certainly Germany from 1870-1914 had strong feudalistic and liberal elements but to say that it was close to Tsarist Russia’s absolutism is simply at odds with the facts. The Reichstag was far from impotent and although it certainly not a democratic parliament it was no rubber stamp either.

The German press prior to the start of the war had significant diversity of ideological positions backed by legal parties with widely varying societal bases of support. While the Kaiser was without a doubt an autocrat it is also true that the vary nature of the German Empire was highly decentralized by modern standards and the various constituent kingdoms had much more influence then you have admitted to.

I will also point out that Imperial Germany had very liberal firearms laws and lacked the kind of intrusive social control one typically identifies with modern authoritarianism. If you wish to look into the matter you’ll see that the institutionalism of the era was very complicated and difficult to catagorize for a great many scholars. Certainly I am aware that you can point to several books which make out Imperial Germany as something moderately preferable to being lorded over by Satan himself but a great deal of scholarly material exists that takes a radically different perspective without being in anyway pro-Kaiser.

To say that most people agree with you is irrelevant as most people know absolutely nothing about the domestic politics of Imperial Germany but instead have been exposed to an overly simplistic and squalid egalitarianism that holds any expression of political theory at odds with contemporary liberalism as worthy of, at best, only ridicule and contempt. I will not say that your position is a product of being English but it dies seem fully inline with the Modernistic gestalt (as envisioned by Andrè Maurois) and it is completely reasonable to reject such a foundationalism.

In short, I find Clemens August and ST’s positions on this matter more rational and better informed. Of course the mod is your “baby” so to speak so I clearly would never presume to tell you how to (mis)characterize any nation in it. I will however that you for your hard work on the mod which I have the greatest enthusiasm for.
 
I would also like to point out that we should look somewhat towards the effects of the slider settings too. Authoritarians get less consumer demands and are better at suppressing partisans and some few more things.

I think that would fit imperial Germany quite well.
 
Royaliste said:
At the risk of being blunt it seems your grossly overgeneralizing Imperial Germany and it seems your doing so from a Modernistic standpoint.

Damn. My plans have been uncovered! :D


StephenT said:
Finally, borders. I'd give them the following in 1914: (Italy and Britain should have claims over their respective Sanusi-held territory).

I think you've given the Senussi too much territory.

Personally, I would give them these starting borders:

libya.jpg


Although Kufra had been the capital of the Senussi since 1894, the effective centre of government was moved to Jaghbub in 1913 as the war against the Italian intensified.

Sanusia should not have control of any part of Egypt - although the Senussi religious order penetrated deep into Egypt (and even to the Arabian Peninsula :eek:), the Egyptian/British authorities had firm control over their borders and were able to put in place a number of measures that ensured that the population of the Western Desert was unable to give much help. Before 1914, the Khedive of Egypt was prevented from giving military aid to the Senussi by British officials, and the contraband movement of arms and ammunition across the border into Cyrenaica was prevented by the British after 1913. In 1914, the Egyptian government had posts at both Siwa and Sollum, so I see no reason to give them to the Senussi - only in 1915 did the Egyptian government lose control of the area.

Italy should have Agedabia province, as they had managed to secure most of Sirtica by 1914 - in March of that year, Italian troops captured Nawfaliyya, thereby giving Italy control of the entire coastline from Tobruk to the Tunisian border. I'd also deliberate over whether to give Italy Murzuk province too (the Italian army conquered the town in 1913, along with Sabha and other towns in the Fezzan) - the Senussi, vitally, held the town of Zillah, which I'd locate in Murzuk province, which allowed them to raid Italian logistics and make life for the advance units in Fezzan very difficult.


StephenT said:
I'd give them claims over all the provinces occupied plus all bordering provinces except that British one in northern Nigeria and the Quattara Depression in Egypt.

The Senussi were generally pro-British before the outbreak of war, so I don't think claims on British territory are quite appropriate.


StephenT said:
Second, an OOB. In August 1914 they apparently had no fewer than 14 brigades (7 divisions) of troops! These included the Fezzan and Riyah cavalry brigades, and the Jofra, Sirti, two Fezzan, two Riyah and six Tripolitanian infantry brigades. I suggest representing these as a cavalry division (Fezzan/Riyah Division), 1890 Infantry Division (Jofra/Sirti Division), three 1860 Militia Divisions (Fezzan Division, Riyah Division, Tripolitania Division) and two 1890 Garrison Divisions (2nd and 3rd Tripolitania Divisions).

I find that quite interesting - what is the source of the information? Is there any indication as to the strength of each unit? It seems that the Senussi had between 20-40,000 in Cyrenaica alone during 1913, so a much larger figure for Libya as a whole might not be unrealistic.


StephenT said:
I'm not sure what to do about the Tuareg tribes in Air: from what I can see, they were subdued and garrisoned by the French in 1914 but rose up as allies of the Sanusi in 1916. In which case, I think representing Air as independent in 1914 isn't accurate; instead the province should be French but with a high resistance factor. The same goes for all the non-coastal provinces of Morocco, incidentally.

Regarding Air, although they were for the most part occupied, subdued they were not. The Sultan of Air had never submitted to French rule like the Ahaggar did in 1902, which combined with French logistical difficulties to ensure that France's hold in the area was so tenuous as to mean very little. My original idea was to model Air as an independent state in 1914, at war with France and with French units in Agadez province involved in fighting. This, however might not be worth doing, so simply making it a French province with a high resistance factor might be best.
 
Allenby said:
Italy should have Agedabia province, as they had managed to secure most of Sirtica by 1914 - in March of that year, Italian troops captured Nawfaliyya, thereby giving Italy control of the entire coastline from Tobruk to the Tunisian border.
Regarding the other borders, fair enough. I'd be inclined to give the Senussi Agedabia though - simply because, as you say, the Italians didn't secure the unbroken coastal strip until March 1914 - and by the end of 1914 they'd lost control of it again.

I find that quite interesting - what is the source of the information? Is there any indication as to the strength of each unit? It seems that the Senussi had between 20-40,000 in Cyrenaica alone during 1913, so a much larger figure for Libya as a whole might not be unrealistic.
I recently bought the board wargame Over There by GR/D: it gives brigade and division-level OOBs for all the Western powers and their opponents in painstaking detail. While I obviously can't swear to the accuracy of the research, I've no reason to suspect it's wrong.

The Senussi brigades are equal in stacking size to brigades of any other country, but their combat value is attack-1 defence-2: compared to a typical 1914 British Territorial brigade with attack-2 defence-3 or a Regular division with attack-14 defence-17. Plus the Senussi are classed as Irregular which gives penalties in combat.
 
will you be including the Western Ukrainian Republic? (ZUNR) it was fairly important. It was made up of the Ukrainians that formed the Austrian Ukrainian legion. we included it in the TWEP mod for victoria...but if you are looking for accuracy, it would be wise to include them....