Major changes proposal : dynastic unions
I was thinking about something and I want to propose the idea.
As the main reason why we don't want to implement big changes about major powers is playbalance, maybe we could implement changes for all of them (in fact, not really all, but I will give some explanations) ?
------------------------------
1/ As far as I know,
Eire should be separated from England. The only part of Eire which was under real suzerainty of England was Dublin region, called Pale, actually a small part of Leinster province.
You can find a map of the situation in 1500 at
http://www.livgenmi.com/gardiner21.htm
You can also find informations about this situation on this page
http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/kilkenny/2/ire1500.htm . The whole site on Ireland history is very interesting. I haven't read everything, but the difficulties England met to rule Ireland were important enough to justify Eire apparition (with probably CB shields of both Eire and England on every provinces of Ireland island).
-----------
2/
Bretagne could be declared independant of France, but be made a vassal, with maybe good relationships and maybe a military alliance. This is a typical dynastic union. I add here a comment from this page
http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm .
'Anne, heiress and Duchess of Brittany (1488-1514), married King Charles VIII in 1491 and then Louis XII in 1499. The understanding was that Brittany would be enfeoffed to a junior line; but after Anne's daughter Claudia (Claude) died in 1524, her husband, King Francis I, kept the Duchy and incorporated it into the Royal domain in 1532.'
I must say also that even if such a dynastic union means governements union were united in one person (here a couple), in 1492, there was many possibilities for Bretagne to become independant again from France.
a/ Either Bretagne could have been transformed in an apanage (domain given to a junior line). This happened to Burgundy during 100 years war and everybody knows how much Burgundy acted independantly. Bourbon was also an apanage and had sometimes very independant behaviours (not enough btw, i think, to be made independant)
b/ Or the successor of Bretagne could have been a women. Imagine for instance that the royal couple of France only has a daughter when the king dies. In this case, this daughter would have ruled Bretagne, but wouldn't have ruled France, as the Salic law prevails and prevent her from access to the throne.
----------------------
3/ The same restrictions applies to
Aragon, which could be separated from Castilla.
In 1492, here again the union was not yet realized. The queen of Castilla, Isabella, and Ferdinando, king of Aragon, ruled together, but both kingdoms has different rules of succession. Aragon couldn't be ruled by a woman, while Castilla could. I'm not sure of that but this seems different from the salic law. In Aragon, women branch doesn't seem to be ignored, but transmit rights to the men of their branchs. But others sources says that Salic law was still applied in Aragon. Whatever, this is not really a problem, as this means that both kingdoms could have been separated after Isabella and Ferdinando's death.
And that was very close to happen, as the throne of Castilla went to their daughter Juana the mad after Isabella's death (1504), while Ferdinando married again but was not able to have a son before his death (1516). If he had, Aragon and Castilla would have been separated again. Note also that Ferdinando had been the first king of Spain, but he only ruled Castilla in the name of his daughter Juana (which was said to be crazy). After Ferdinando's death, the kingdom of Aragon was transmitted via Juana to Carlos I (Karl V of HRE), who was also heir of Juana for Castilla, and also of the Habsburgs. But this is another story.
So an independant Aragon, with a vassalty link to Castilla (actually, which one should be the vassal ?), a military alliance and good realtionships should have a sense, to my opinion. Note that, like in every dynastic unions, local parliaments, fiscal systems and administrations were independants.
4/
Poland and Lithuania could be separated in the same way and for the same reasons. Maybe Tanone or someone else could tell us if successions rules were identicals in both Lithuania and Poland. The only thing I know is that Union of Lublin was established in 1569, because the king Zygmunt-August feared his dynasty (the Jagellons) could die out. And actually it really died out, but the Union prevent separation. So this means that here again, the dynastic union was exposed to separation, if dynastic evolutions induced it.
--------------------
You can see that I add 4 new kingdoms and weaken 4 major powers, and that's maybe the only way not to unbalance too much the game. That has to be tested of course.
Maybe this implementation should be tested separately from the IGC, I don't know, but I don't have the ability and the time necessary to handle a new scenario.
My major fear was that division of Poland would unbalance too much the game in eastern Europe, but Tanone's tests seems to prove that this division is viable. I guess that division of the 3 major western powers will be balanced, the others major countries in the west being weaker - Netherlands and Portugal. And remember also that Austria is in fact in the same situation as the four divided countries : it is weak and not very extended until it can annex Hungary.
For Ireland, Aragon, Bretagne, the TAGs are availables, but some of them are used for other countries in the IGC (if we do this with the IGC). For Lithuania, I think that we could be able to suppress one country (a catholic one).
I prefer first to wait for your opinion, before going on, as I know that these changes are really very importants... and bigger than the previous ones.
Regards
Raf
NB : have a look at the site
http://www.friesian.com/philhist.htm . There are so many interesting infos on the whole history of the world. And, Mc Guinn, there are many shields there that could interest you.