Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Vytautus Didysis and Wladyslaw II Jagiello

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
U

unmerged(6926)

Second Lieutenant
Dec 19, 2001
123
0
Visit site
Full of curiosity about very strong performance of Lithuanians at hte beginning of GC I've just looked to monarchs.lit and saw this:

historicalmonarch = {
id = { type = 6 id = 04290 }
name = "Vytautus Didysis"
startdate = { year = 1392 }
enddate = {
day = 27
month = october
year = 1430
}
DIP = 7
ADM = 7
MIL = 8
dormant = no
remark = "The victor of Tannenberg/Grunwald."

What? The victor of Tannenberg/Grunwald? I know it is popular view of old historiography but new researches have no doubts: full command of polish-lithuanians forces in the battle of Tannenberg/Grunwald was in the hands of king of Poland Wladyslaw II Jagiello. It's out of discussion in modern historiography. Well, this remark has no meaning for a game. But let's look to leaders.lit - Vytautus Didysis has this values:

movement = 4
fire = 3
shock = 4
siege = 0

So let's compare to Wladyslaw II Jagiello:

movement = 4
fire = 1
shock = 3
siege = 0

It must be mistake! Wladyslaw II Jagiello not only won the battle of Tannenberg/Grunwald in 1410. He defeated Vytautus Didysis three times in years 1382 - 1385 (near Wilno and near Troki in 1382, near Grodno (Vytautus Didysis allied with Teutonic Order) in 1385). From the other side, Witold was defeated in the great battle of Worskla in 1399 by Tatars. I admitt he won many small battles aginst russians princes of Polock, Smolensk etc. but he can't have better values as a leader than Wladyslaw II Jagiello! More, in my opinion Vytautus Didysis' values as a monarch shouldn't be better than Wladyslaw II Jagiello. Especially DIP = 7 for Vytautus compared with DIP = 6 for Wladyslaw II is ridiculous. Personal diplomatic abilities of Wladyslaw II effected in polish-lithuanian alliance against Teutonic Order and his marriage with king (yes, I know what I'm talking: with king, not queen) of Poland, Jadwiga. Eventually he was offered throne of Bohemia and Hungary. Vytautus from the other side didn't achieved nothing without help of Wladyslaw II.

I think the correct dip values for Vytautus should be 2 lower than for Wladyslaw II and I am for DIP = 7 for Wladyslaw.
 
Right, I've already improved Jagie³³o's leader statistics...
My proposal is to set Lithuania as a vassal of Poland already in 1419 as well :)
 
Originally posted by Crook
While leaders are definitely up/downgradable, Lithuania was in no way a vassal of Poland, especially considering Lithuanian claims to the Polish crown.
Click to expand...

?????? :confused:
What Lithuanian claims?!!!

Short story about Polish - Lithuanian union:

1. Union of Krewa (1385) concluded by Duke of Lithuania Jogaila, who obligated to incorporate (lat. applicare) Lithuania to Poland after accession to Polish throne.

2. Union of Wilno-Radom (1401) authority in Lithuania was commited for life to Vytautas (Magnus Dux- Grand Duke). He issued a document which conirmed that Lithuania was subjugated of Polish Crown. Additionaly Vytatutas promised to join Lithuania to the Crown. Jagiello kept supreme rule (Supremus Dux - Supreme Duke).

3. Union of Horodlo (1413) established:
- separate Grand Duke of Lithuania institution, who was elected with participation of Polish landlords,
- common Diet and local councils sessions,
- common access to governor offices in Lithuania,
- 47 Lithuanian (or rather Ruthenian ones) noble families aquired many privileges, connecting them with main Polish ones.

In 1419 such one was in force... Doesn't it fit excellent to my idea? Lithuania is really seperate state however Polish vassal.
 
Last edited:
My proposal is to set Lithuania as a vassal of Poland already in 1419 as well
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. Untill Aleksander became king of Poland (1501) Lithuania conducted its own policy, quite often not convergent with the polish one. This two countries (Poland and Lithuania are much too strong and much too agressive at the beginning of EEP_GC.
 
I assume Poland will also get a diplomacy boost from high aristocracy. Is this reasonable?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is - in times of Wladyslaw II (and his son Kazimierz 1447-1492) polish diplomacy was really high. Take look that Wladyslaw was offered thrones of Bohemia and (seperately) Hungary and that son of Kazimierz became king of both these countries.
 
Originally posted by Awomaru
I strongly disagree. Untill Aleksander became king of Poland (1501) Lithuania conducted its own policy, quite often not convergent with the polish one. This two countries (Poland and Lithuania are much too strong and much too agressive at the beginning of EEP_GC.
Click to expand...

There were of course few periods of the union break off for instance 1440-47. During 13YW Poland was fighting alone. Then the union was rather personal one. However unification process was still following up...

Afterall I meant 1419 and this time Lithuania was Polish vassal, you can't deny...
 
Afterall I meant 1419 and this time Lithuania was Polish vassal, you can't deny...
Click to expand...

I try deny :)

What means vassal? In history, the person (monarch) obliged to a) pay personal hommage b) give army support on demand c) sometimes give annual payment. Was Lithuanian's monarchs vassals of polish kings in this meaning? Especially Witold, Kazimierz Jagiellonczyk (in 1440-1447), Aleksander (in 1492 - 1501) ? IMHO - no.

What means vassal in EU2? The country paying half of monthly income, can't get in alliance or royal marriege with third country. Was Lithuania in this position in XV century? IMHO - no.

Problem is, EU can't deal with personal unions of countries, so often in XV and XVI century. Vassalization as a substitute for personal union is what must be decided very carefully. In this case I'm abolutely against.
 
Originally posted by Awomaru
I try deny :)

What means vassal? In history, the person (monarch) obliged to a) pay personal hommage b) give army support on demand c) sometimes give annual payment. Was Lithuanian's monarchs vassals of polish kings in this meaning? Especially Witold, Kazimierz Jagiellonczyk (in 1440-1447), Aleksander (in 1492 - 1501) ? IMHO - no.

What means vassal in EU2? The country paying half of monthly income, can't get in alliance or royal marriege with third country. Was Lithuania in this position in XV century? IMHO - no.

Problem is, EU can't deal with personal unions of countries, so often in XV and XVI century. Vassalization as a substitute for personal union is what must be decided very carefully. In this case I'm abolutely against.
Click to expand...

Well, about money transfer you are right, I cannot use vassalization this way for personal union...
About politician aspect I am not sure. Even personal union has its "Master"...

However, in 1419 union between Poland and Lithuania was not only personal one. See my post above :)
 
I feel we are out of subject of this thread :)

1. There are official documents and there is a real life. The history is full of declarations of unions - quite few were realized. Not to going to far in the past: could you say today Belorus is part of the same state as Russia? Officialy they are: Union of Belorus and Rusia - but now no one agree with (and eventually they could be one country).
More or less the same about unions in Krewo, Wilno-Radom and Horodlo. Note that if some legal document is repeated by legislator, it usally means it has no significance. After all, there was need to union in Lublin too...
2. But if you take these documents literally, especially word "applicare", then Lithuania should be part of Poland, not vassal, yes? :)
 
Originally posted by Awomaru
I feel we are out of subject of this thread :)

1. There are official documents and there is a real life. The history is full of declarations of unions - quite few were realized. Not to going to far in the past: could you say today Belorus is part of the same state as Russia? Officialy they are: Union of Belorus and Rusia - but now no one agree with (and eventually they could be one country).
More or less the same about unions in Krewo, Wilno-Radom and Horodlo. Note that if some legal document is repeated by legislator, it usally means it has no significance. After all, there was need to union in Lublin too...
2. But if you take these documents literally, especially word "applicare", then Lithuania should be part of Poland, not vassal, yes? :)
Click to expand...

No quite out of topic: we are talking about proper balance between POL and LIT :)
In my opinnion now it is wrong. In matter fact Poland was further better developed and powerful kingdom then Lithuania in the mentioned period. In EU2 the situation is quite another one. Not only Vitautas/Jagiello unbalanced statistics, but quantities of armies, annual income etc. It is the reason I want them to be the vassal and it is not historically out of accordance. Poland is just too weak when Danzig was moved to TO (but it had to be) and need some reinforcement...

BTW: Finally Lithuania became the part of Poland, not the other way, didn't it? :)
 
As I agree with your goal (balance between POL and LIT) I can't agree with method (LIT vassal of POL). Instead we should try to weak LIT:
1. less troops
2. less money
3. less income and manpower in southern (ukrainians) provinces - they were mainly emptiness in XV century, AFAIK lithuanians dukes had little or no income and manpower from Jedisan, Krementjug, Poltava and Ukraina (in EU compare income and manpower of Ukraina and Krakow/Poznan/Wielkopolska/Mazovia - it's set completely wrong).
 
But Kiew needs to be valuable for the Russians.
 
Originally posted by Awomaru
As I agree with your goal (balance between POL and LIT) I can't agree with method (LIT vassal of POL). Instead we should try to weak LIT:
1. less troops
2. less money
3. less income and manpower in southern (ukrainians) provinces - they were mainly emptiness in XV century, AFAIK lithuanians dukes had little or no income and manpower from Jedisan, Krementjug, Poltava and Ukraina (in EU compare income and manpower of Ukraina and Krakow/Poznan/Wielkopolska/Mazovia - it's set completely wrong).
Click to expand...

Right, but you regards weakening of Lithuania monster only. I think Poland need strenghtening a little bit...

But Kiew needs to be valuable for the Russians.
Click to expand...

Forget about Russians in 1419... :)
 
Originally posted by pithorr


?????? :confused:
What Lithuanian claims?!!!
Click to expand...

You don't need to teach me a short history of Polish-Lithuanian relationship, I know that. You're forgetting about the fact that both Lithuanian Duke and King of Poland were relatives, therefore Lithuania could (and tried) to claim the crown of Poland.

I disagree with vassalship, it never existed, and there is no need to do that. Poland and Lithuania already start with +190 and a military alliance (unjustified, really), and that's enough. Polish leaders might need a little improvement, but I doubt that we need to do a mjor overhaul. Making Polish provinces a little bit richer should suffice, and Lithuania really rarely achieves anything anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back