All right then 
.
back to diplomacy and the sorts :
Imho one can roughly put diplomacy into two categories :
1. Defensive Diplomacy
As the name says the aim hereby is to ensure the continuation of the status quo or in other words : to avoid any greater conflict or bloodshed from ever happening through preemptive negotiation by means of skillfull communication, national leverage based on power, influence based on relationships and so on. Fundamentaly...this policy is the art of balancing out the international equation to maintain a stable equilibrium of might.
An example of this could be Von Bismarck´s Treatysystem in the late 19th centure (Through all sort of complex pacts and interdependencies he managed to avoid general war in Europe during a time of high tension (Imperialism, Nationalism, Chauvinism).
2. Offensive, Preparationary Diplomacy
This concept is pretty basic and simple to understand in theory yet in a way it is much harder to implement. It is the art of adjusting the hierarchies/relations between empires to your direct benefit in preparation of a large scale conflict you intend to unleash in the near future.
Let us explore this concept on a concrete example :
Imagine you are playing Brandenburg/Prussia and you´re planning a war against France, which is allied to the Ottoman Empire. You do not know the present intentions of Russia, your eastern neighbour. You also don´t know how Russia will react to your aggression against France. Now before you dow France you would be prudent to neutralise the potential russian threat to your eastern borders. This is were preparationary Diplomacy kicks in.
You try to alienate Russia with the Ottoman Empire (by whatever means neccesary, be it lies, subterfudge or real or imaginary armybuildups).
IF you are successfull in this matter you will have a free hand with France, and, in the best case scenario, even an ally against OE and thus France.
I believe that much can be achieved through words, if the correlations are correctly calibrated.
Finaly....when engaging in this form of diplomacy it is - imo at least - way better to exaggerate, even if your lamentations are pretty unrealistic, than outright lie. Lies generate bad feelings, if and when they are unmasked, while exaggerations are always a matter of subjective interpretation and perspective.
I hope I´ve been able to tell at least some of you something new, if not, may the snoars of your boredom torment me till my own boredom starts tormenting you.
See you on the battlefield.
. back to diplomacy and the sorts :
Imho one can roughly put diplomacy into two categories :
1. Defensive Diplomacy
As the name says the aim hereby is to ensure the continuation of the status quo or in other words : to avoid any greater conflict or bloodshed from ever happening through preemptive negotiation by means of skillfull communication, national leverage based on power, influence based on relationships and so on. Fundamentaly...this policy is the art of balancing out the international equation to maintain a stable equilibrium of might.
An example of this could be Von Bismarck´s Treatysystem in the late 19th centure (Through all sort of complex pacts and interdependencies he managed to avoid general war in Europe during a time of high tension (Imperialism, Nationalism, Chauvinism).
2. Offensive, Preparationary Diplomacy
This concept is pretty basic and simple to understand in theory yet in a way it is much harder to implement. It is the art of adjusting the hierarchies/relations between empires to your direct benefit in preparation of a large scale conflict you intend to unleash in the near future.
Let us explore this concept on a concrete example :
Imagine you are playing Brandenburg/Prussia and you´re planning a war against France, which is allied to the Ottoman Empire. You do not know the present intentions of Russia, your eastern neighbour. You also don´t know how Russia will react to your aggression against France. Now before you dow France you would be prudent to neutralise the potential russian threat to your eastern borders. This is were preparationary Diplomacy kicks in.
You try to alienate Russia with the Ottoman Empire (by whatever means neccesary, be it lies, subterfudge or real or imaginary armybuildups
).IF you are successfull in this matter you will have a free hand with France, and, in the best case scenario, even an ally against OE and thus France.
I believe that much can be achieved through words, if the correlations are correctly calibrated.
Finaly....when engaging in this form of diplomacy it is - imo at least - way better to exaggerate, even if your lamentations are pretty unrealistic, than outright lie. Lies generate bad feelings, if and when they are unmasked, while exaggerations are always a matter of subjective interpretation and perspective.
I hope I´ve been able to tell at least some of you something new, if not, may the snoars of your boredom torment me till my own boredom starts tormenting you
.See you on the battlefield.
Last edited:
