How is the Drang Nach Osten going to work? Is it going to be a series of events or is it going to be done differently?
-
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.
I assume the German player (human or AI) will have to subdue the "natives" to resettle land and expand that way. Doesn't strike me as very good material for events... Will be interresting to see though 
but using that method there is no limit to German expansion ie i could play as Saxony and resettle everything up to Moscow with germans! That would be cool but really odd at the same time....
That would be cool but really odd at the same time....
I'll guess there is:Originally posted by Napoleon XIV
but using that method there is no limit to German expansion ie i could play as Saxony and resettle everything up to Moscow with germans!
a. Some limitations to where you can resettle (e.g. only pagan areas)
b. Some limitations on how much you can resettle (e.g. similar to "colonists" in EU).
well even with the Pagan only restriction you could resettle tracts of land in Finland, Northern Russia, the Baltic, Large chunks of Poland etc...
But wouldn't a pagan restriction be a bit odd also? The Drang Nach Osten also went into christian areas (ie Poland Czech republic and a few others)
But wouldn't a pagan restriction be a bit odd also? The Drang Nach Osten also went into christian areas (ie Poland Czech republic and a few others)
Do you think there will be simular limitation applied to creating Crusader States? Because theoretically (without more knowledge on how Crusader States work) one could swallow up the lower half of the map by going on crusades.
One thing to keep in mind is you have to fight and win to do any of this. Is that going to be a walk in the park? Will the pagans and Muslims just sit by idly letting you trample all through their lands?
Well the Germans didn't settle those lands, but others did. Both Finland and the Baltic countries were subjects from Scandinavian crusades. The Swedes started settling the Finnish coast already during the Viking Age and the area around the Botnian bay were also colonised from Sweden. However it is true it was not cultural take-overs, only smaller settlements.
As Havard said, the Germans could only use the crusading excuse to attack and subjugate pagan lands, so there youre looking at the lands between Elbe & Oder and the Baltic Coast in competition with the Danes & Swedes.
The borders of Christian Poland would be the obvious barrier to further expansion. But here, at least in the extreme west, the emperor was able to bring some traditionally Polish fiefs under his wing. The Dukes of Silesia transferred their allegiance to Barbarossa sometime after his successful Polish campaign (1157), while the Duke of Pomerania did the same when Frederick defeated Henry the Lion (1181). Additionally, Poland itself was technically an imperial vassal, although it required frequent campaigns to keep it that way.
The borders of Christian Poland would be the obvious barrier to further expansion. But here, at least in the extreme west, the emperor was able to bring some traditionally Polish fiefs under his wing. The Dukes of Silesia transferred their allegiance to Barbarossa sometime after his successful Polish campaign (1157), while the Duke of Pomerania did the same when Frederick defeated Henry the Lion (1181). Additionally, Poland itself was technically an imperial vassal, although it required frequent campaigns to keep it that way.
Last edited:
Poland was HRE vassal? Apart from short period in first half of XII century, and (?) few others in XI, i can't recall such things...
The Germans did settle large pieces of what was Poland and what is the Czech Republic (Erz, Silesia, The Pommerns, Sudentenland, Danzig, pieces of Russia (out of timeframe) and Hungary...)
They might have been technical Vassals. Like the counts of Barcelona were supposed to be vassals of the French King. The French King was never actually powerful enough to collect his end of the bargin, and eventually let them go in a treaty.
Was it the treaty where they gave up claims on each other?
From what I have read on the "Swedish Crusade" to Finland, the Swedes were allies to a Finnish group similar to the Estonians who jointly attacked the other Finns. The "Estonians" were assimilated by the Swedes.
What did you think all those imperial campaigns were for?
To the emperor, Bohemia, Poland, & Hungary were his vassals. Although youre right, "vassal" isnt the correct word; they werent direct vassals like the German princes (although Bohemia moreso than the others), but the emperor frequently demanded fealty, and/or tribute and contingents for his Italian campaigns.
Poland and Hungary generally refuted the claim and it was partly for this reason that each sought royal crowns of their own (and why Otto III's recognition was so important, but even he saw Poland as a kingdom within his empire). The emperors constantly interfered in succession disputes to extract fealty from the candidate they backed or were related to (Vladislav the Exile, Casimir the Restorer). Another trick was to "grant" the Polish prince something he wanted in return so it could be mutually beneficial (Boleslav III & West Pomerania). Sometimes the prince in question would accept it when forced to and then retract later (Boleslav the Curly).
Of course this relationship depended on the emperor's ability to enforce it militarily; only a strong emperor could maintain it, and even then with difficulty (Henry III). Barbarossa certainly considered Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, & Denmark as his satellites. He initially invaded Poland and forced Boleslav IV to submit, pay tribute, and send troops to Italy; when Boleslav recanted, he simply started appropriating traditional Polish vassals (Silesia, Pomerania). So I guess it depends which party you asked; most emperors from 10th-13th c. would answer "yes", while Poland & Hungary would answer "no".
Thanks, nothing like first-hand sourceOriginally posted by BarbarossaHRE
What did you think all those imperial campaigns were for?
To the emperor, Bohemia, Poland, & Hungary were his vassals. Although youre right, "vassal" isnt the correct word; they werent direct vassals like the German princes (although Bohemia moreso than the others), but the emperor frequently demanded fealty, and/or tribute and contingents for his Italian campaigns.
Poland and Hungary generally refuted the claim and it was partly for this reason that each sought royal crowns of their own (and why Otto III's recognition was so important, but even he saw Poland as a kingdom within his empire). The emperors constantly interfered in succession disputes to extract fealty from the candidate they backed or were related to (Vladislav the Exile, Casimir the Restorer). Another trick was to "grant" the Polish prince something he wanted in return so it could be mutually beneficial (Boleslav III & West Pomerania). Sometimes the prince in question would accept it when forced to and then retract later (Boleslav the Curly).
Of course this relationship depended on the emperor's ability to enforce it militarily; only a strong emperor could maintain it, and even then with difficulty (Henry III). Barbarossa certainly considered Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, & Denmark as his satellites. He initially invaded Poland and forced Boleslav IV to submit, pay tribute, and send troops to Italy; when Boleslav recanted, he simply started appropriating traditional Polish vassals (Silesia, Pomerania). So I guess it depends which party you asked; most emperors from 10th-13th c. would answer "yes", while Poland & Hungary would answer "no".
btw, i though first campaigns were made by marches, not by empire itself. later when Poland was recognized as christian state it became impossible for marches to try to conquer it (not to mention Poland got stronger than any march
)where was that imperial campaign of Barbarossa? 1147?
Originally posted by DarthMaur
Thanks, nothing like first-hand source
btw, i though first campaigns were made by marches, not by empire itself. later when Poland was recognized as christian state it became impossible for marches to try to conquer it (not to mention Poland got stronger than any march
where was that imperial campaign of Barbarossa? 1147?
Barbarossa's Polish campaign was in 1157 and included Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, Albert the Bear, Margrave of Brandenburg, and Vladislav II of Bohemia. He wanted to: 1) Avenge Conrad III & Vladislav the Exile; 2) Settle the dispute over Silesia stemming from #1; 3) Force Boleslav IV to recognize him as overlord, pay tribute, and send troops to fight Milan.
After Barbarossa reconquered Silesia for the Exile's sons and apparently took Posen, Boleslav submitted, but a year later made a shrewd gamble; he knew Barbarossa was about to cross the Alps to tame Milan, so he waited until the last possible minute and then repudiated the treaty, betting that it was too late for Frederick to postpone the Italian campaign and re-invade Poland. He was right. Hungary, on the other hand, had barely avoided invasion by sending its own contingent (1158).
Youre correct that Poland staved off the marcher lords by accepting Christianity on its own. Thereafter it wasnt the margraves that invaded Poland, but the emperors themselves. Youre also right that regardless of the emperors' claims, Poland was effectively independent, unless the current emperor was strong enough to do something about it. Imperial claims and reality were frequently not the same thing.
And it only matters what was the situation in 1066, when the game begins. Rest is up to engine and players...Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
Barbarossa's Polish campaign was in 1157 and included Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, Albert the Bear, Margrave of Brandenburg, and Vladislav II of Bohemia. He wanted to: 1) Avenge Conrad III & Vladislav the Exile; 2) Settle the dispute over Silesia stemming from #1; 3) Force Boleslav IV to recognize him as overlord, pay tribute, and send troops to fight Milan.
After Barbarossa reconquered Silesia for the Exile's sons and apparently took Posen, Boleslav submitted, but a year later made a shrewd gamble; he knew Barbarossa was about to cross the Alps to tame Milan, so he waited until the last possible minute and then repudiated the treaty, betting that it was too late for Frederick to postpone the Italian campaign and re-invade Poland. He was right. Hungary, on the other hand, had barely avoided invasion by sending its own contingent (1158).
Youre correct that Poland staved off the marcher lords by accepting Christianity on its own. Thereafter it wasnt the margraves that invaded Poland, but the emperors themselves. Youre also right that regardless of the emperors' claims, Poland was effectively independent, unless the current emperor was strong enough to do something about it. Imperial claims and reality were frequently not the same thing.
Thats a great point!
Ive always assumed CK would be like EU2, "guided" by historical events along the way (like the struggle of Vladislav II with his brothers), but Havard and Sonny set me straight. So youre right, none of this other crap even matters. So what was the situation in 1066?
Poland was basically freed from "vassalship" by the death of Henry III, right? Henry IV was too young to enforce it. Boleslav II helped one claimant to the Hungarian throne (1060), and Henry IV invaded Hungary in support of his candidate (1063). Boleslav also quit paying the tribute to Bohemia for Silesia agreed to by his father. He then sided with the Pope against Henry IV during the investiture conflict and in return was recognized as King of Poland (1076). Did I leave out anything important affecting German-Polish relations?
So I guess in 1066, Poland was independent!
Last edited:
Well the game will only ship with a 106 scenario, but patches will hopefully give others...
very interesting topic indeed,
do you know of any good book on Barbarossa? (apart from baudolino, of course
thanx
do you know of any good book on Barbarossa? (apart from baudolino, of course
thanx