Game 10

Rozwi_Game10 wrote:Nothing happened in Africa this turn. Or if it did, I can't remember what it said about it in the newspaper.

Researching Dodo sightings was far more interesting

That's a bad thing.

In my next turn I have a diplomatic envoy going to Portugal, am raising four combat units, am inquiring as to citizens who wish to be in a levee as volunteers among commoners and nobles and m announcing the Emperor will be looking to marry which might set off some diplomatic messages to my kingdom proposing marriages and some role-playing in the game.

Soon I'll be declaring neutrality militarily and begin plans to end slavery in the Abyssinian Empire over a couple months. Will heavily work on my Artisan Mining plan also to try to get that jump started at least well enough to build on.

tkolter wrote:

Rozwi_Game10 wrote:Nothing happened in Africa this turn. Or if it did, I can't remember what it said about it in the newspaper.

Researching Dodo sightings was far more interesting

That's a bad thing.

In my next turn I have a diplomatic envoy going to Portugal, am raising four combat units, am inquiring as to citizens who wish to be in a levee as volunteers among commoners and nobles and m announcing the Emperor will be looking to marry which might set off some diplomatic messages to my kingdom proposing marriages and some role-playing in the game.

Soon I'll be declaring neutrality militarily and begin plans to end slavery in the Abyssinian Empire over a couple months. Will heavily work on my Artisan Mining plan also to try to get that jump started at least well enough to build on.

I look forward to seeing how your developments go I think it's great when we have more non-European positions active

As for the Pope I'm thinking of openly coming out against the Office of the Pope as a player running an Orthodox Christian ruler position predating the Roman Catholic Church and am preparing a document showing the evil Popes have done and maybe have my religious mission in Portugal nail them onto the biggest Cathedral there. If he gets on my leaders nerves too much. Just noting all the evil Popes to date should be enough how can they be voices of God when they do evil it makes the very core of the institution morally corrupt. I can then have him openly support other ways to God which are far more valid. I'm trying to come up with a good name for it however something impressive.

The Holy See isn't a nation so my planned neutrality won't apply in dealing with it as will opposing any slave barons who may become an issue.

In period, the Papal States are, in fact, a nation.

Attacking the pope will endear you to protestants, and probably most orthodox, but will offend catholics. If you want to stir the pot, that will do the trick. You may view that as remaining neutral, others may not agree with you.

If I were Portugal, and you used me and my cathedral to launch an attack on the Pope while I was angling for the Spanish throne, I would be pretty annoyed with you.


Not sure what you're planning here: "am inquiring as to citizens who wish to be in a levee as volunteers", but I'd advise you that your recruit pool is your volunteers, so be cautious about trying to overspend that number. You can pull up recruits beyond those numbers, even get 'volunteers'. But because those recruits are coming out of your economy, they will damage your EH(Economic Health) when you do that. Players have tried a LOT of creative ways to try to pull more recruits out of their existing position and I've yet to hear of one that works. Normally players end up with a negative recruit number when you do this, and it damages your EH a fair bit.

It happened to me early in game 8 when I started some new crops and didn't realize that they required 1,000 recruits to start. (New crops/businesses that you've never done require an initial investment of recruits that existing crops/businesses don't.)

Did I say recruits I'm talking about a Levee that is find out who wants to serve their Empire and local districts if invaded and then see they are given what they need to deploy almost immediately and be plugged into the national defense plans. Why should I wait to call them up and then arm them and try to train them haphazardly? If this makes sense but training would be maybe one afternoon a month and with the army forces when they can fit in some added training nothing serious just I want to make sure they don't hit themselves or a friend with a sling launched iron bullet or cut themselves with a sword. Rudimentary true but it might offer benefits which can pay off later ... or not.


I will add though some normal armed forces that works with them later on it will be awhile.

And you're right no use going up against the Vatican I'd rather deal with slavery within the Empire and ask other Christian rulers follow his example.

The main rules (I think - rather than a supplement) give details on a Massed Area Levy

Yes so I have a simple hands up who wants to be in the Levee if called up then will decide how many to arm, equip and provide training not like a soldier and work them into the national defense ... I'm not going to force service in this I could call up ten percent by order but I'd rather have a smaller willing and then armed and supplied number of subjects. Say 5% think its a good thing okay then I'll keep it simple who will want to fight, who would do non-combat work, who would like to work on setting up locations these people might hide and so forth. Then I will decide who to actually accept in the game I might opt to limit the number to 2% hand picking the best ones from volunteers and thank the rest with pride so many came forward. I'm not sure I have to wait but volunteers would be to me better than pressing men and women into service.

Just going back to the potential Abyssinian quarrel with the Pope, is Abyssinia not Coptic, rather than Orthodox? If memory serves, the Orthodox and Coptic schism is far older than the Orthodox vs. Catholic schism. Maybe a challenge to the Patriarch of Constantinople (titular head of the Orthodox Church)?

Sent from Topic'it App

No they are Ethiopian Orthodox Christians they are supported by the Coptics but are Orthodox and an Saint of the church met with Martin Luther and he said all Lutherans were in Communion with the Abyssinian church so can share communion in each others holy places and done by each others clergy. They also in the Empire have a history with the Muslims being one of the earliest powers to shelter Muslims from their enemies and the Jews have a decent presence as well. So if one includes other Orthodox Churches who they so tend to have the historical support of they have lots of allies and potential friends other than the Roman Catholics who looks down on everyone. And I will note as the sole African Christian Nation the Empire should have decent support even with the differences they are not Muslims or Pagans and a very old faith predating Rome ,with the older Jewish leaning elements, for over six centuries and became Christians when they received the word of God building on the earlier teachings. So it can get interesting.

My characters issue is this Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods and has other support in the OT so feels no religious leader should also wield secular power its a violation of the spiritual role to corrupt it with the Earthly. The Church of England does have the King as the head of the faith however much of the day to day activity is not done by him and he is counterbalanced by the Archbishop and the body of believers who need to willingly support him. And since the Emperor only considers Christian leaders he leaves the Jews and Muslims and others to their peculiar elements. The one leader who fails his test is the Pope but he would council he just had all secular matters to a King and the Pope focus on spiritual matters to clear the conflicting interests. Of course a ruler should accept the council of the Christian clergy and should be guided by the word of God. So he won't rip the Papacy a new one just have a written book explaining the issue and mean it as a guidance document to the Pope to help the Church be better. If he fails to see it that way is another matter.

That's why I sent a Religious Mission with the Ambassador to get clerical people in Western Europe to strengthen ties with other Christian nations and do things later on along those lines in the long term, not the Empire will be 'pushy' its a view that likely the Pope won't agree with one can be civilized and disagree without being ungentlemanly.

Abyssinian Orthodox Church is not in communion with other Orthodox churches. Which is to say, they call themselves Orthodox but the other Orthodox churches don't apparently agree and aren't likely to be friendly.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches split off after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, so they've been out of communion with the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics a long time.

Having read the entry that Luther extended communion to the Ethiopian Orthodox makes me wonder if that was actually reciprocated? The article listed doesn't say. My limited reading on eastern orthodoxy makes me think most of the ancient churches, of which this is definitely one, were very prickly on a lot of subtle points of theology.

I am with Deacon in this one. Main issue was the nature of Christ, and whether the divine and the human coexisted together. Orthodox Christianity went with a dual nature, what became the Coptic group went for the single nature. It was the first major schism in the organised Christian Church.

As all other schisms came later, off the Eastern Orthodox Churches (i.e. Roman Catholic & later most Protestant Churches) follow the dual nature.

Ethiopian Orthodox is part of the ‘non-Chalcedonian’ group of Churches, which includes Egyptian Coptic, Syriac Orthodox & Armenian Apostolic.

It’s all quite interesting from a historic point of view. Rise of Christianity was one of my elective courses in my Classics MA, fond memories although too much knowledge on Church history can affect ones faith.

Sent from Topic'it App

Yes but who would Christian nations prefer to deal with, Abyssinia the solitary African native Christian Empire OR Jews, Muslims and Pagans given a choice? All I know is my nation must strike a balance and well is land locked fortunately Somali has a Christian presence and Muslims by now seem to not want to invade so is in a good no one that matters hates Abyssinia and if they did would need to invade neutral nations first to get to it. Later on when they needed arms Russia was a major supplier seeing them as Orthodox maybe different but Italy the nation threatening the most was Roman Catholic so supporting them was also a religious consideration.

And my game leader would be writing his opinion as an Emperor he leaves the matters of theology to scholarly priests and the leader of the official church, its an honest opinion, that the leader of a major faith a country which is Christian should keep secular power and religious power outside of one persons hands without a very broad counterbalance such as Protestantism having all believers having the Word of God and can form opinions.

Unless you want to make an issue of it I would not get too hung up about if you are in communion with their Church or have a 1500 year dispute about the nature of Christ. Since I have found (certainly in game) that a lot of "Christian" powers are perfectly happy to deal with total pagans like the Ashanti and even the Shia Persian's. Sometimes it also helps if you are anti Ottoman.

I do however think you should push the claim to be the "Lion of Judah" and a direct heir of Soloman and the Queen of Sheba and Paster John since it helps with your public Image in Western Europe and perhaps your credit rating with Jewish Banking Houses.

As a Sunni Muslim playing a Roman Catholic power, I would be more than happy to engage with the heir of Pastor John & the Lion of Judah. Abyssinia is a land of legend & hope at this time, almost mythical. Hence Martin Luther looking to it as an alternative source of moral authority.
In game, you can play it how you want my friend, and challenging on the division of Church & State is a legitimate debate, which would allow you to engage in Europe.
You never know, certain RC European powers, ruling Papal fiefs (cough, cough), may support you!

Sent from Topic'it App

I took communion in one of their temples as a Lutheran and attended classes about the faith and historically the only Christian denominations they had issues with were the Roman Catholics and it was they who split off contact as noted and the Calvinists by and large Orthodox Churches considered them in the family maybe not ideal but still not Roman Catholic. The Coptic Church were affiliated with but doctrinal differences were enough to prevent union with them but the Coptic Pope was preferable to the Roman Catholic Pope. This as decades ago when the region was far more stable and my dad was stationed at an embassy. ^_^

Just saying the fact they were non-heathen Christians did help them historically even the Roman Catholic Church didn't target them as enemies with so many others in Africa to worry about and elsewhere.

It is a good angle. Some creative & inspiring speeches in this vein could see your honour rocket. & maybe a few embassies from the more enlightened powers will be making their way to Abyssinia.
It’s why I love this game. I have not looked at or seriously thought about these aspects of Christian History in almost 20 years.

Now this is funny I was Wisconsin Lutheran and they did believe my taking communion was wrong with the other faith and when I pointed out Martin Luther said it was fine changed the subject and didn't want to listen. lol

Well, if Abyssinia wants to point out to the Pope why he is basically wrong about anything and everything, I think he'll find Scotland will be his wingman

Now if you'll excuse me, I just need to go and edit volume 15 of "The Collected wisdom of John Knox or why the Pope is a silly man"

Well not, everything. His position will be about the separation of essential functions between the religion and government which he clearly isn't following so is abusing the will of Christ and corrupts his office. Noting if one includes all the assets of the Church is has the broadest and most influential faith in Europe and the world. I for one am happy Africa has an alternative Christian faith brought to her by the Queen of Sheba herself.

You find the idea of an alternative Christian faith in the English Reformation. Henry VIII did instruct his advisors to look in the old records in monasteries (before he closed them down) to see if they could find evidence that the former British Church (what we now often call the "Celtic Church") had maintained some older, purer form of Christianity that became lost with the Synod of Whitby and submission to Rome. The idea was, for Henry, if he could find the evidence of this then the break from Rome was not a rebellion but a restoration of the old order.
I think by 18th C it was an argument that had lost popularity as the Age of Enlightenment was sort-of starting (plus the Reformation was secure and didn't need such claims to support it) but perhaps if this new Pope does start to push anti-Protestant agenda, it might be something England can remind him about.

In Scotland this idea wasn't part of the Reformation but it does creep up every now and again

That only works if you actually are harking back to the older church. I haven't really seen anything from the Anglicans that suggest they are echoing back from that older church.

And given that the church of England is lead by the monarch, I think the argument for the 'separation' of religious authority and secular authority doesn't work either.

Which leads me to another question. I had sort of thought that the separation of powers was a relatively modern liberal concept? Any of our historians here want to comment on that?

Sorry, my intention wasn't to imply that the CoE had claimed it was a continuation of the earlier churches in Britain, apols if it came across like that .  Rather it was a musing on an idea that had been popular that the churches in Britain, prior to Whitby, had followed a separate and older version of Christianity than that of the Catholic Church, similar in some ways to the Abyssinian belief, and how Henry VIII had considered that as part of his argument for the break from Rome. However given the popularity of the legends of the ancient origins of Christianity at Glastonbury, even in the Glory period, it gives a good source of material with which to tease a pope who might be (on early announcements) trying to play up the splits that led to the Reformation  

Jason wrote:Sorry, my intention wasn't to imply that the CoE had claimed it was a continuation of the earlier churches in Britain, apols if it came across like that .  Rather it was a musing on an idea that had been popular that the churches in Britain, prior to Whitby, had followed a separate and older version of Christianity than that of the Catholic Church, similar in some ways to the Abyssinian belief, and how Henry VIII had considered that as part of his argument for the break from Rome. However given the popularity of the legends of the ancient origins of Christianity at Glastonbury, even in the Glory period, it gives a good source of material with which to tease a pope who might be (on early announcements) trying to play up the splits that led to the Reformation  

In England the King does have two checks one the Archbishop and clergy who do in fact run the day to day matters and have a strong position on the theology the King or Queen approves of changes and can of course have opinions of his own and the laity who all hold a Bible and can read it forming other opinions if they wish so Protestant rulers have checks against their abuse of power. The Pope is a Prince with all the corporal power and is the absolute head of the Church the former a possible corrupting influence. Biblically he will have a case in the OT one tribe of the Hebrews dealt with religion, Prophets and others were not Kings but advised them and gave Godly council. Jesus said Himself to give unto the ruler what is the rulers and to God that which is God's separate of duty. And Jesus shunned corporeal power he didn't rule but sacrificed and gave wisdom.

The Pope can correct this issue just have the Princes of his kingdom choose a King and he can hand over corporeal power to them perhaps trial by battle the strongest before God being King, then he can handle spiritual. And must I add how broad the Catholic Church is its likely the most spread out Empire in Europe and abroad.

I'm not rushing in this view most likely a booklet will be penned for the Princes of Europe to mostly argue they can ignore the Pope and Church on secular matters and he has no authority to act since God in His wisdom through Jesus to have defined roles the secular princes on the right hand and religious authority on the left in a lesser role but also important the matter of souls.

That really isn't true about the 'absolute' authority of the pope within the church.

Witness Pope Francis' issues today. The Synod of bishops still hold a great deal of power in the catholic faith. It is a common view that the Pope is absolute, but actually isn't. That said, it is pretty close to absolute. Given that most royals of the period are claiming divine right, I'm not sure that I find the argument of separation of powers all that compelling. It feels modern to me.

Acknowledged Jason you weren't making that claim, just that _if_ you wanted to make the claim that the Anglicans hark back to an older church, you'd need some basis for that and I don't see any. That said, history does rather suggest that the Irish can make the claim of being the real crucible of European Christiandom. As you mention, I'm not sure how much of that was known in the early 1700s.

I get it though. The Pope and France are very popular whipping boys in Glory. People like to score points off them. Not so different today, really :D

No, you're right that the modern Anglican Church doesn't say it is a restoration of the older churches but it was an idea that was thrown around during the English Reformation (the quickest reference I could find to that slightly strange idea is in this wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity#Definitions).  However these were known arguments in 18th C (in a "how how silly our ancestors were, even if they were freeing us from Rome" sort of way)...so, if a learned gentleman, with a good knowledge of antiquarian matters at the time, wanted to wind the pope up, he could re-raise the idea
Oddly in the line of work last year, I had to produce a summary of the argument (for certain elected officials), its political origins, and why historically it was an inaccurate viewpoint in relation to the current political situation in the UK

As to the Irish, the idea was known at the time and popular in a romantic sort of way I seem to recall.    In the Glory period I think it was more used as a way of  looking down on contemporary Irish society ("how the mighty have fallen" as it were) though I believe towards the end of the Century it was used by Irish nationalists to promote their cause.