• 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.
Originally posted by Keoland
*Edward III also sent troops, but the english deserted long before the battle and only a few welsh longbowmen stood by our side in the conflict.

Quite an impressive feat, since he had been dead for eight years! The English troops were actually provided by John of Gaunt, at that point a claimant to the Castilian throne. Which in itself was partially related to the interminable "Hundred Years War" then occurring between England and France.

I've also never heard that the majority deserted, although I have found a reference to the "good service" provided by the longbowmen-but then it's difficult finding a good description of Aljubarrota in English.
 
Originally posted by Agelastus
Quite an impressive feat, since he had been dead for eight years! The English troops were actually provided by John of Gaunt, at that point a claimant to the Castilian throne. Which in itself was partially related to the interminable "Hundred Years War" then occurring between England and France.

I've also never heard that the majority deserted, although I have found a reference to the "good service" provided by the longbowmen-but then it's difficult finding a good description of Aljubarrota in English.


Quite right, he was dead for eight years. But the troops were sent by the terms of the Treaty of Westminister in 1373, which was thought exactly to fight off spanish invasions of Portugal, in the context of the 100 Years War. Although John of Gaunt was the only one that actually sent in troops, I suppose one can say Edward III was the true force behind their arrival. But you're absolutely right, i'ts just me that am used to think about Edward III.
(I debated this 'true force' behind the english troops over here a few years ago, and the idea kinda stuck to my head).

Oh, the english desertion is well remembered here. The more so because the english troops quickly resorted to pillage to support themselves and devastated a pretty large area of Alentejo, forcing our forces to hunt them for the next few years and preventing us from concentrating our forces in Castille. Indeed, perhaps THAT is because Edward III never sent in troops during his lifetime: maybe he knew just how unreliable the english were.

And it is true that we sided with England in that war (D.João married Philippa of Lancaster, and all out next kings were Lancastrian), while Castille was aligned with the French (hence the presence of the french knights in the castillian army, who were actually responsible of its defeat, as they charged us without orders and made sure the castillian ranks had to follow suit in extremely adverse conditions, in order to try to extricate the french cavalry from the mess they had entangled themselves on).

Indeed, I cant help thinking the french knights were more of a detriment than an aid to France in the War... ;)

Oh, and if you think finding a description of Aljubarrota in English is difficult, try it in spanish - their usual reply is «what is Aljubarrota?» :D

Regards,
Keoland
 
Originally posted by Keoland
Oh, and if you think finding a description of Aljubarrota in English is difficult, try it in spanish - their usual reply is «what is Aljubarrota?» :D

Regards,
Keoland

Well, there's not many countries that bother to glorify defeats-in fact there's only one that I can think of!:D

Still, that's what you might describe as a typically "nationalistic" response. Fortunately, the people on these forums are generally more interested in history than that!:)
 
I think when a new Province was gained you have in any case some loss of stability in that province caused by changes in administration, the old elites lose power, etc.. Old inofficial structures exist parallel to new structures that have to be built. To some extend that could be even observed when East Germany joined the West. The question is how to model this in EU properly. I think to increase the risk of revolts is a good solution otherwise one would need stability levels for each province. To call it "nationalism" was maybe not such a good solution but does not make any difference for playing the game.
 
New provinces

That must be a distinction in the way of conquest. Ex. 1560 the city of Reval an the nortern Estonian provinces begged the Swedish king for protection. Or the conquest of the smaller Danish-Norweigan provinces 1645. These new provinces did not destabilised the Swedish kingdom, the first one due to that they were ruled as provinces and not as an integrated part of the kingdom, for the 1645 gains the provinces were small and poor and the cultural/religious difference was not that much.
Opposite the union with Scotland 1611 destabilised England