I'd like to hear some comments on this topic. Is it correct to think of a royal marriage as an alliance without the obligation to help the other country in times of war? What other differences are there between the two?
-
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.
Royal marriage isn't alliance as such. It's more like a bridge between two countries hoping to live in peace or to cement peace treaties and so. RM's cannot be described as alliance because neither one has any obligations to other. Think of it as CNN back then: when the country goes to war and you manage to get RM, you'll see live war without having to fight on anyones side.
Alliances are alliances. One big happy family. Fight for eachother, help eachother at peacetime (well, that job is mostly yours). There is actually no way to compare RM and alliance. They are just with so different purpose.
Alliances are alliances. One big happy family. Fight for eachother, help eachother at peacetime (well, that job is mostly yours). There is actually no way to compare RM and alliance. They are just with so different purpose.
A royal marriage is just a connection through marriage of the rulers of two countries. It helps improve relations and causes a loss of stability when declaring war, but isn't an alliance.
