G7....War declared

Jason2 wrote:I'll try and help with the whole "King in Prussia" situation.  Stuart has got part of the answer-there are two reasons for it, but they are not exclusive.  It's either rather fascinating or rather tedious, depending on your outlook.  I am simplifying some of this as some of the reasons are really technical and yes really tedious, could bogged down in some very loooooonnnnnnnggggg explanations of minor points no one would care about

In the HRE there are only two Kings (I think some say only two holders of "royal" titles but I feel that can be confusing as to most people  Princes etc are also royal).  One is the King of the Romans, basically the Emperor.  The other is the King of Bohemia-at some stage early in the history of the Empire there were two competing Emperors, the Duke of Bohemia backed the winner, must have been one hell of a support as the now only Emperor granted him the title of "King" and no one else was allowed to use the title.  By the Glory period the King of the Romans and the King of Bohemia have been the same person for a few hundred years and its seems this two-headed (two faced?) individual was quite content to be the only king in the Empire.

Now yes both Denmark and Sweden have territory in the Empire but neither has any of their core territory there.  So for Denmark its their holdings in Holstein, which the King of Denmark holds as a Duke not as King, and Sweden...well not sure technically how they are held but they are not seen as integral parts of the Kingdom of Sweden and therefore not lands held by the King of Sweden as King, maybe he holds them as a Duke too.  Yes, I know that's not the everyday reality but it's political fictions to keep everyone happy and not fighting wars over who can call themselves "King", which would be among the 10 silliest reasons to fight a war, perhaps the Top 5.

So 1701 dear old Freddy of Brandenburg-Prussia gets rewarded for backing Austria in the WSS and given the title of King.  Now of course the Emperor doesn't want to stop being so special but luckily the Duchy of Prussia has never been part of the Empire so the political fiction is that as long as Freddy is in the Duchy of Prussia he is King of that realm but soon as he enters the Empire, he is simply Duke of Brandenburg.  So King while IN Prussia effectively.  Not completely sure if the Duchy of Prussia starts calling itself a Kingdom or not.
So that's reason 1-a reward but rewarded in such a way not to stop the Emperor being the only King in the Empire

The second reason is Prussia is not just the Duchy but, as Stuart mentioned, it's quite a large geographical area.  So while the Duke of the Duchy of Prussia might want to call himself King, if he starts calling himself King of Prussia it sounds like he is laying claim to the rest of the the geographical Prussia, which would annoy those who ruled the other lands there.  By using "in" rather than "of" it implies he is King of some land in Prussia, not King of all of it.  Again its a bit of a political fiction, maintains political niceties.  Think about it this way, the ruler of the USA is the President of the USA, he's not President of America because even though a lot of people say America when they mean the USA, in geographical terms America is more than the USA...and if the President of the USA decided to say they were President of America places like Canada, Mexico, Brazil might take offence.

Things get a little more complicated as the Kings of Poland also said they were King of Prussia until the end of the Glory period...but a lot of Prussia was Polish and I think the Duchy had been subject to Poland until just before the  Glory period.  Of course there is the issue of the Elector of Saxony being King of Poland but Poland is a special case, I don't think they even saw the "King" as royal in the way just about any other nation would see a King as royal...and I doubt the Poles really gave two stuffs if they upset the Emperor over the use of a title.

So if I've read this correctly, the Emperor is two-faced and banned anyone other than himself from being referred to as 'king'. Bit of a conceit referring to him as an 'emperor' at all in that case when he should just be a king.

Given WSS hasn't happened in G7, reason 1 doesn't apply.

As for reason2, what is to stop both the King of Prussia and the King of Poland both using the title of King of Prussia? Didn't the Kings of France and Spain both claim titles (of Duke of xyz, or Count of xyz) that the other were convinced were theirs? It wasn't this which led to repeated wars between them, but other reasons, so perhaps there is hope that peace can be maintained.

I hope you are right about the Poles not giving two stuffs if they upset the Emperor - I knew there was another reason I liked Poland.

Well, when it comes to explaining why you can't use the title "King of Prussia" in the early 18th C it's much easier to explain the real-life reasons than the in-game ones.  Maybe in G7 there was a night we don't know about where the Emperor and the Duke played a few hands of cards, the bets got higher and higher, with it finally reached the stage where the Emperor said "if you win, you can be a king" and the Duke won that hand.  
The actual reasons why given the politics of the HRE of the day meant the ruler of Prussia couldn't be "King Of" instead of "King In" would still hold.  It's not the WSS that means he can only be "King In", it is that the rules of the Empire by that time..

As to the Emperor and what you call him, you will have to go a long way before you beat Lord Fong in G9 who has reduced him to the Duke of Austria

As to reason 2, I think you are falling into the usual trap of thinking Prussia in the early 18th C is the powerhouse of the late 18th C or early 19th C.  It's not, it's a small minor power, it doesn't want to hack off (too much) what it still sees as its more powerful neighbour, the Poles.  If the ruler of Prussia decides to call himself "King of Prussia" at this time, there is a perceived threat that Poland (whose King calls himself "King of Prussia") might see that as a minor upstart taking their King's title as well as claiming those bits of Prussia still under Polish control and maybe invade.  Whether or not the Prussia-Brandenburg of that time could have held off the Poles-or if the Poles would have invaded- is a separate issue.

As to the France/Spain comparison, they are reasonably balanced powers, they can claim the same titles because they feel if the other decides to fight a war over it, they are evenly matched or they might even have the upper hand, the other side knows that so why would they risk it? In fact I suspect the claiming of the same tiles almost becomes a replacement for war, a way of scoring points.  A better way to think about it is if someone like the Doge of Genoa decided to claim a title the King of France or Spain saw as theirs, I strongly suspect Genoa would be far more likely to be invaded, especially if the title implied some sort of control over a large area of French or Spanish territory.

If you want a modern comparison, look at the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", they wanted to call themselves "the Republic of Macedonia" and basically Greece stopped them claiming that using that name would imply they claimed their province of Macedonia.  The principle is the same.  Ok yes Greece did not invade the Former Republic over it but public belief in the Former Republic was that the Greeks would be willing to fight a war over the issue-it doesn't matter if we want to sit here and go "oh how silly, the Greeks would never have invaded over that", but that doesn't mean the people of that nation didn't think it was impossible.

Jason2 wrote:Well, when it comes to explaining why you can't use the title "King of Prussia" in the early 18th C it's much easier to explain the real-life reasons than the in-game ones.  Maybe in G7 there was a night we don't know about where the Emperor and the Duke played a few hands of cards, the bets got higher and higher, with it finally reached the stage where the Emperor said "if you win, you can be a king" and the Duke won that hand.  
The actual reasons why given the politics of the HRE of the day meant the ruler of Prussia couldn't be "King Of" instead of "King In" would still hold.  It's not the WSS that means he can only be "King In", it is that the rules of the Empire by that time..

As to the Emperor and what you call him, you will have to go a long way before you beat Lord Fong in G9 who has reduced him to the Duke of Austria.

Seriously, your explanations of the history are helpful and appreciated.  I find most of the history of HRE/Prussia/Poland very confusing.

I've been caught out too often in G7 relying on real history (and assuming what did happen historically has happened in the game) instead of following game history - that is one reason why I have to so meticulously research Martel, etc, and track their movements through the old newspapers.  Perhaps your idea of them playing cards for a title is not so far fetched?

As for Lord Fong, seems like he beat me to it - something very similar was in the order already submitted which will hopefully be carried out this coming month.  I do hope that the Duke of Austria in G9 did not also have a goat fixation.

Jason2 wrote:As to reason 2, I think you are falling into the usual trap of thinking Prussia in the early 18th C is the powerhouse of the late 18th C or early 19th C.  It's not, it's a small minor power, it doesn't want to hack off (too much) what it still sees as its more powerful neighbour, the Poles.  If the ruler of Prussia decides to call himself "King of Prussia" at this time, there is a perceived threat that Poland (whose King calls himself "King of Prussia") might see that as a minor upstart taking their King's title as well as claiming those bits of Prussia still under Polish control and maybe invade.  Whether or not the Prussia-Brandenburg of that time could have held off the Poles-or if the Poles would have invaded- is a separate issue.

Not really, I appreciate that Prussia is divided and has a couple of detached enclaves to the west (near Flanders), so is in a tricky strategic position.  It takes a bit of work, but it does have potential.  I vaguely remember that it was active at the start of G7 and has a couple of colonies, so clearly the original player did do something to strengthen it so the current player is building on solid foundations.  I don't know how much of Prussia's army was given to Leoplod to lose during the last war (or how many Prussians were given by him to UDP), but having been inactive for some years, the current player should have received a reasonable amount of recruits and built up significant financial reserves.  I think it is reasonable to assume that unless he had allies, taking on Poland by himself would be tricky, but in the game he should be well able to defend against an attack from Poland.  The puzzle is why he would want to attack Poland given that I can't remember a single instance of Polish aggression against her neighbours during G7?  I can't even remember Poland being active in G7.  Of course if that changes and Poland is now active then I can see why Prussia would be worried.  Seems a shame for war to erupt in the Baltic which will inevitably hit trade returns when all the players with access to the Baltic Sea have tried to focus on building up Baltic trade!

Jason2 wrote:As to the France/Spain comparison, they are reasonably balanced powers, they can claim the same titles because they feel if the other decides to fight a war over it, they are evenly matched or they might even have the upper hand, the other side knows that so why would they risk it? In fact I suspect the claiming of the same titles almost becomes a replacement for war, a way of scoring points.  A better way to think about it is if someone like the Doge of Genoa decided to claim a title the King of France or Spain saw as theirs, I strongly suspect Genoa would be far more likely to be invaded, especially if the title implied some sort of control over a large area of French or Spanish territory.

If you want a modern comparison, look at the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", they wanted to call themselves "the Republic of Macedonia" and basically Greece stopped them claiming that using that name would imply they claimed their province of Macedonia.  The principle is the same.  Ok yes Greece did not invade the Former Republic over it but public belief in the Former Republic was that the Greeks would be willing to fight a war over the issue-it doesn't matter if we want to sit here and go "oh how silly, the Greeks would never have invaded over that", but that doesn't mean the people of that nation didn't think it was impossible.

I suppose what you say here is possible, but it isn't how I would look at it.  Where there is a greater disparity of size, surely there is even more reason for the larger country not to invade the smaller - the simple reason is honour.   Not 'game' honour in terms of variation in honour score (although that would probably be hit), but that the larger nation would demean itself by invading the smaller nation.  Such an attack could only be justified if there was some validity in the claims of the smaller nation, in which case being crushed militarily wouldn't solve the dispute, but create an ongoing sense of grievance.  It is the kind of dispute which can only be resolved diplomatically?

For dodgy claims to titles in 1700 I still think the most dodgy claims are those of the King of England to the titles of "Defender of the Faith" awarded by the Pope yet still claimed by the head of a Protestant Church and also the fact that all Kings of England (historically up to the 1800's) also claimed to be the King of France.

Major gripe between France and Spain over titles was over who was "King of Navarre". After the unfortunate experiences of their Visigothic High Kings at the hands of the Franks and the Arabs modern Spain starts out with a whole bunch of northern Visigoth nobles in what is now Northern Spain and Southern France claiming a Royal Titles and when not fighting each other setting out to take back Iberia from the Arabs. From this origin you get the Kingdoms of Castile, Leon, Aragon, Portugal and Navarre plus a couple of others.

By 1700 all of these Kingdoms with the exception of Portugal had merged into one Kingdom but like the British Kingdoms of England, Ireland and Scotland it was still a personal union of the crowns and the Kingdoms retained their own Cortez, taxes and laws (Though the in all Kingdoms the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and Roman law ment that they did not differ massively). Greater centralization of Royal Power did happen during our period due to the Bourbon Victory in the WSS partly because Bourbons are like that and also because various Cortez (like those in Aragon) backed the other side.

As well as Portugal the other "Spanish" Kingdom to semi drift off was that of Navarre after the Norman French Count of Evreux became King of Navarre in 1328. Loss of his Norman possessions in 1378 and lack of money finally forced Charles the Bad to submit to the French Crown while keeping his Royal title. Meaning that you now had two "Kings in France" plus various other holders of French lands and Titles who held Royal Titles like King of England, King of Naples etc outside of France. One "vassel" of the Crown of France even became Eastern Roman Emperor in 1204 so technically outranked the King who's vassel he was for lands in what is now Northern France and Belgium.

Oddly a claim to the the title of "King of Navarre" along with that Kingdoms lands north of the Pyrannies came into the then protestant hands of the Bourbon Family before Henry of Navarre decided that Paris was worth a mass and became King of France. Henry of Navarre Grandson Louis XIV is thus pretty certain he is King of France & Navarre.

Meanwhile the other claimants to the Royal title plus the Cortez of Navarre and the part of the Kingdom south of the Pyrannies joined in the general merger of Kingdoms which formed the Kingdom of Spain.

Thus from a Spanish point of view the French and Louis XIV in particular has stolen the northern bits of the Spanish Kingdoms of Navarre, Aragon and Majorcia. Plus a very large chunk of their Kings inheritence from the Burgundian line in places like Picardy and Artois.

While from Louis XIV point of view he has a claim to the whole of the Kingdom of Navarre - none of this messing with King in X when he says he is King of Navarrre he means the whole of it! As for the Burgundian inheritence as far as French Royal Lawyers are concerned Salic Law applies, Marie of Burgundy and he husband Maximilian of Hapsburg have no claim and not only should Ducal Burgundy but the rest of the inheritence inc the whole of the low countries (Flanders/UDP) and Franche Comte should be French Royal Lands even if many of them are inside the Holy Roman Empire.

Ref the titles of the current Holy Roman Emperor in G7 he is King of Bohemia, King of Hungary and King of Croatia as well as holding a ton of other titles like Arch Duke of Austria (not a mere Duke of Austria).

But is he actually the Emperor? Jason 1 who lives in Germany and speaks the language says the English are being very lazy in translation and in German you would only actually be a full Emperor if you take a trip too Rome and get crowned by the Pope. If you are crowned in Germany you are actually "King of the Romans" and an Emperor Elect untill you get down too Rome.

A trip no one has actually bothered with for a couple of hundred years because it might make the Emperor look inferior to the Pope.

PS As for the "King of Poland" title .......various oddities here a) It is an elected title b) The Kingdom of Poland is only a part of the "Rzeczpospolita" which is very roughly translated as The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which also includes the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ukraine and The Duchy of Courland and a few other bits like Danzig which is a sort of City-State. The Commonwealth can best be viewed as a Noble Republic with a Senate but technically power is with the Nobles as a class.

In other words the King of Poland is less a King as the title is understood elsewhere but more like a team manager for the owners (who are the Nobles) or the CEO of a company or Charity with a very active Chairman and Board of Directors making sure he is following the constition and wishes of the founders.

In early games of Glori du Roi Poland-Lithuania-Saxony was a super power which smashed everyone. So Richard changed things to make it more historic and an impossible position for a player to run riot with. Question now is how will the Agema NPC's who will drown a Player Character in red tape and veto's react too being invaded? Think player concern is suddenly the Polish Senate turns out to be full of Cato the Elder want to be's, the Winged Hussars suddenly start to teleport and your supply waggons were last seen buried in hordes of Cossacks. Even that Martel shows up investing in Polish war bonds from boxes marked property of the French Treasury or Spanish North African budget.

Put it this way if the Commonwealth musters 25% of its possible military power the Prussian Army is a red smear. If it gets close too 100% the Russians still have a large edge......just need to keep a very, very close eye on sickness levels. Whats that you go to SL #2 walking to the end of the Road, SL #4 if you cross a river due to sea sickness and your horses are scared of wings?

Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref the titles of the current Holy Roman Emperor in G7 he is King of Bohemia, King of Hungary and King of Croatia as well as holding a ton of other titles like Arch Duke of Austria (not a mere Duke of Austria).

But is he actually the Emperor?  Jason 1 who lives in Germany and speaks the language says the English are being very lazy in translation and in German you would only actually be a full Emperor if you take a trip too Rome and get crowned by the Pope.  If you are crowned in Germany you are actually "King of the Romans" and an Emperor Elect until you get down to Rome.  

A trip no one has actually bothered with for a couple of hundred years because it might make the Emperor look inferior to the Pope.  

Any secular title is inferior to its sacred equivalent, so by definition the 'emperor' (who is really a king) is outranked by the Pope, in which case there really isn't any excuse for him not going to Rome to pay homage to the Pope?  

Thinking about your previous post and how certain crowns (or titles) are not automatically inherited, does this apply to Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia, etc?  So it is possible that when an 'emperor' dies (or someone successfully challenges him and is elected emperor instead) each of these nations has to accept him as their king else nominate another one?  I suppose what I'm asking is whether the titles attach to Austria or to the Emperor?

I can see that the ruler of Austria is entitled to be referred to as an Archduke rather than a Duke, although I do wonder how this fits in with other ranks.  I'm guessing that if an Archduke is a superior kind of duke, then the title is lower than a prince and equivalent to a Grand duke?

Stuart Bailey wrote:PS As for the "King of Poland" title .......various oddities here a) It is an elected title b) The Kingdom of Poland is only a part of the "Rzeczpospolita" which is very roughly translated as The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which also includes the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ukraine and The Duchy of Courland and a few other bits like Danzig which is a sort of City-State.  The Commonwealth can best be viewed as a Noble Republic with a Senate but technically power is with the Nobles as a class.

In other words the King of Poland is less a King as the title is understood elsewhere but more like a team manager for the owners (who are the Nobles) or the CEO of a company or Charity with a very active Chairman and Board of Directors making sure he is following the constitution and wishes of the founders.

In early games of Glori du Roi Poland-Lithuania-Saxony was a super power which smashed everyone.  So Richard changed things to make it more historic and an impossible position for a player to run riot with.  Question now is how will the Agema NPC's who will drown a Player Character in red tape and veto's react to being invaded?  Think player concern is suddenly the Polish Senate turns out to be full of Cato the Elder want to be's, the Winged Hussars suddenly start to teleport and your supply waggons were last seen buried in hordes of Cossacks.  Even that Martel shows up investing in Polish war bonds from boxes marked property of the French Treasury or Spanish North African budget.

Put it this way if the Commonwealth musters 25% of its possible military power the Prussian Army is a red smear.  If it gets close too 100% the Russians still have a large edge......just need to keep a very, very close eye on sickness levels.  Whats that you go to SL #2 walking to the end of the Road, SL #4 if you cross a river due to sea sickness and your horses are scared of wings?

If memory serves you did try to play Poland for a while, Stuart, so probably have a better insight than most of the difficulties both of ruling Poland and defending it.

As an elected title, then I suspect if Poland was attacked and the excuse given was because of some action of the king, then the nobles would just elect another king (probably one who knew how to fight), and the nobles would unite behind him and present a very tough NPC opponent indeed.  The best chance for any attacker would be if Poland was active, although if that player invited Martel to join him, then Poland's demise would be assured.

Who was superior - the Pope or the Emperor - was a question which was "debated" for thousands of years and I am not sure they ever came up with a certain answer which everyone agreed with. Certainly in the first few centuries of the Church as established by the Emperor Constantine the Pope was inferior to the Emperor and was an Imperial subject just like everyone else.

The establishment of the Holy Roman Empire and the crowning of Charlemagne by the Pope lead to claims in religious circles that the Pope was superior too and even appointed the Emperor and by extension all other secular Kings were also subject to the Pope as the deputy to God on Earth. Not that this was a theory anyone actually tried to argue to Charlemagne's face or to any other Emperor Eastern or (restored?) Western Emperor for about another 400 years.

This was when things really blew up over who had the right to appoint (invest) Bishops. With various Emperors, Kings and other rulers getting excommunicated and even having crusades called against them and various Pope's, Papal Legates and other agents of the Papacy being kidnapped and so ill treated by secular powers (esp the French Monarchy) that the died.

Generally however as both sides needed each other positions were held in theory but fudged in practice. So Bishops (and Holy Roman Emperors) needed to be confirmed by the Papacy but the Pope would only be given one person nominated by the local secular power to confirm. Resulting in some Bishoprics and Cardinals positions esp in Germany and Italy being held by members of the same family for hundreds of years. Really annoying the truely devout when 4 year old bishops got appointed.

Also if that person was considered not suitable for post for whatever reason or could just not be bothered to go all the way to Rome to get confirmation this resulted in Bishop or Emperor Elect's who just did the job and in theory were always intending to go some day. Bit like the number of Dukes of Burgundy etc who were always going to lead a Crusade some day. Not sure when and why Emperor Elects stopped trying to get down too Rome and a proper coronation. But it probably had something to do with Venetian objections to hordes of armed Germans marching across their land. Esp if he was likely to demand "support" and oaths of loyalty from his Italian subjects on route.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Who was superior - the Pope or the Emperor - was a question which was "debated" for thousands of years and I am not sure they ever came up with a certain answer which everyone agreed with.  Certainly in the first few centuries of the Church as established by the Emperor Constantine the Pope was inferior to the Emperor and was an Imperial subject just like everyone else. The establishment of the Holy Roman Empire and the crowning of Charlemagne by the Pope lead to claims in religious circles that the Pope was superior too and even appointed the Emperor and by extension all other secular Kings were also subject to the Pope as the deputy to God on Earth.  Not that this was a theory anyone actually tried to argue to Charlemagne's face or to any other Emperor Eastern or (restored?) Western Emperor for about another 400 years.

You will always be able to find examples of Emperors who disagreed with the Papacy, but over the centuries you will struggle to find Emperors who despite threatening and attacking Popes could force them to quit, whereas there are plenty more examples of Popes who excommunicated Emperors who did not accept their authority.  Irritating it may be, but if you look at the order of precedence in processions, the clerical nobility always come before their secular equivalents.  Similarly, Emperors do not crown Popes, but Popes regularly crown Emperors.  I think somewhere in the game rules there is some requirement that the Holy Roman Emperor has to promise to uphold the Catholic Faith (which in part means accepting the authority of the Pope), so if the coronation oath has been unchanged since the time of Charlemagne, then this would seem to require the Emperor to be (a) Catholic, and (b) accept that he is inferior to the Pope!

Stuart Bailey wrote:This was when things really blew up over who had the right to appoint (invest) Bishops.  With various Emperors, Kings and other rulers getting excommunicated and even having crusades called against them and various Pope's, Papal Legates and other agents of the Papacy being kidnapped and so ill treated by secular powers (esp the French Monarchy) that the died.  Generally however as both sides needed each other positions were held in theory but fudged in practice.  So Bishops (and Holy Roman Emperors) needed to be confirmed by the Papacy but the Pope would only be given one person nominated by the local secular power to confirm.  Resulting in some Bishoprics and Cardinals positions esp in Germany and Italy being held by members of the same family for hundreds of years.  Really annoying the truly devout when 4 year old bishops got appointed.  Also if that person was considered not suitable for post for whatever reason or could just not be bothered to go all the way to Rome to get confirmation this resulted in Bishop or Emperor Elect's who just did the job and in theory were always intending to go some day.  Bit like the number of Dukes of Burgundy etc who were always going to lead a Crusade some day.  Not sure when and why Emperor Elects stopped trying to get down too Rome and a proper coronation, but it probably had something to do with Venetian objections to hordes of armed Germans marching across their land.  Esp if he was likely to demand "support" and oaths of loyalty from his Italian subjects on route.

Again, we are likely to disagree.  Nobody can be appointed a Catholic bishop unless they meet the requirements of Canon Law which is the ultimate responsibility of the Pope, so it doesn't matter if a secular ruler only submitted a single candidate for consideration - the Pope had the final say and if that candidate wasn't eligible under Canon Law, there was nothing the secular ruler could do other than offer another one or let the Pope appoint someone he didn't know who was more suitably qualified.  No secular ruler can dispense with the requirements of Canon Law so once again the Pope has power over and above that of secular rulers, even emperors (who are really kings!)

Ref Papa Clement question about which Austrian Hapsburg titles were inherited and which were elected.  I believe that historically:-

a) The Archduchy of Austria plus the Duchies of Silesia, Styria, Carniola and Cariola plus Tyrol, Trient and Salzburg were inherited and were sometimes referred too as the "Heriditary Lands" and had special rights under Imperial Law and in Imperial treaties.  For example agreements to allow toleration of Protestants did not apply to these lands.

b) The Kingdom of Bohemia was a elective Monarchy but changed to a hereditary Hapsburg Monarchy after the Battle of White Mountain in 1621.  Not saying the Diet which voted through the change was packed but most of the people who would have voted against had just been killed in battle, executed or gone into exile.

c) Historically the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia changed from being an elective Monarchy with the vote being by the diet to being a inherited Hapsburg Monarchy in 1712.  

d) The Kingdom of Hungary was also an elective Monarchy with its King elected by the Diet.

- But unlike Poland and even the Holy Roman Empire the vote to elect the heir was conducted while the existing Monarch was still alive so any Noble voting the wrong way would be exposed to Royal Hapsburg disfavour.

e) The Holy Roman Emperor was elected by a small number of Imperial Princes who held the title of Elector.  In theory anyone of Noble blood could stand but it was very unlikely that anyone other than a Hapsburg would be elected.  Did not happen historically but has happened in a couple of games  of Glori in which the Austrian player has either thrown his toys out of the pram and resigned the title as "meaningless" or fell out with everyone including a poor, over worked and under payed Ottoman civil servant in Rumelia. In first instance the new Emperor was a harmless old duffer from Phalz going for highest ever honour score in Glori du Roi.  In other one the the German Princes even the Catholic Bishop Princes voted for the Elector of Brandenburg /Duke of Prussia (Jason 1 with high military and diplomatic reputation) in a bit of a panic after Ottoman light cavalry got too border with Bavaria.

It should also be noted that the Holy Roman Emperor has to be a man so when Maria-Teresia became historically Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary etc, etc she could not be elected Holy Roman Emperor and it was her Husband who was elected HRE.  Technically the House of Hapsburg then changed to that of Hapsburg-Lorraine.  In G7 something like this could happen with the Emperor Josef only having daughters, so with the eldest daughter probably going to marry the heir of the Duke of Savoy rather than the Duke of Lorraine the official title for the Austrian Line will be Hapsburg-Savoy.

Of course in a real crisis the Electors could always go for the younger brother of the current Emperor rather than his son in law and elect the cute, cuddly Charles von Hapsburg of Spain.  But it would probably have to be a real crisis!!

PS Did not play Poland exactly but did play Saxony (pity about x2 early famines in a row killing the position) who's Elector in 1700 is also the King of Poland.  This additional title gave zero extra income which ment I was trying to run a small and a medium-large position with resources of a small position.  Did however allow me to recruit and invest in Poland and not get by recruiting parties arrested.  Was also able to inspect and even order NPC Polish Troops to drill.

Was also able to use by Royal Power to call meetings of Sajem (in oath said I had too) and control what was being voted on.  Rather than put forward proposals which would then get voted down or vetoed by Agema NPC's (Major Nobles) my Augustus favoured meetings of full Sajem on horse back.  Speaches by various of my NPC's on pro/cons and a single vote on range of possible options with Royalty giving no directions then have a piss up with the minor nobility.

He also reinforced various garrisons with elements of his Royal Guard and made appointments - so Danzig for instance was reinforced by 3 Elite footguards and 100 locally raized FC and it's Castillion is the brother of one of King Augustus Royal Mistresses who also lives in Manor House in city with one of his kids.

Got impression that as King I could do nothing at all outside frontiers of the Commonwealth with Polish forces unless I could some how come up with cash to hire them........Cossack Hetmen in Ukraine would have been happy to hire me 200 Squadrons of Light Horse.  So starting with pretty much zero ability to project power but loads and loads of stood down troops.  Perhaps if Ottomans at gates of Vienna and Pope & Emperor willing to put hand in pockets might have been able to do something.

In event of invasion of the Commonwealth rather than a NPC defence I got impression that Richard would have been happy to accept by money/orders and have me run the defence rather than a NPC.  Players can make their own opinion on which would be the harder military challenge?

I have noticed that Richard has pretty much lifted my Rumelian G2 standing orders and tactic's and used them for NPC Rumelians in other games.  Probably because he got so used to Rumelians acting in a certain way.  Wonder if Polish defence will follow suit?  Small garrisons helped by elements of Royal Guard and a few skirmishing border patrols trying to earn time for th Sajem to decide if they are going to fight or not?

Might be a walk over?  Might be 30 Squadrons of Elite Noble Winged Hussar Lancers smashing into your rear of flank trying to cut a hole for hordes of Pancerni and Cossacks.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref Papa Clement question about which Austrian Hapsburg titles were inherited and which were elected.  I believe that historically:-

a) The Archduchy of Austria plus the Duchies of Silesia, Styria, Carniola and Cariola plus Tyrol, Trent and Salzburg were inherited and were sometimes referred too as the "Hereditary Lands" and had special rights under Imperial Law and in Imperial treaties.  For example agreements to allow toleration of Protestants did not apply to these lands.

b) The Kingdom of Bohemia was a elective Monarchy but changed to a hereditary Hapsburg Monarchy after the Battle of White Mountain in 1621.  Not saying the Diet which voted through the change was packed but most of the people who would have voted against had just been killed in battle, executed or gone into exile.

c) Historically the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia changed from being an elective Monarchy with the vote being by the diet to being a inherited Hapsburg Monarchy in 1712.  

d) The Kingdom of Hungary was also an elective Monarchy with its King elected by the Diet.

- But unlike Poland and even the Holy Roman Empire the vote to elect the heir was conducted while the existing Monarch was still alive so any Noble voting the wrong way would be exposed to Royal Hapsburg disfavour.

e) The Holy Roman Emperor was elected by a small number of Imperial Princes who held the title of Elector.  In theory anyone of Noble blood could stand but it was very unlikely that anyone other than a Hapsburg would be elected.  Did not happen historically but has happened in a couple of games of Glori in which the Austrian player has either thrown his toys out of the pram and resigned the title as "meaningless" or fell out with everyone including a poor, over worked and under payed Ottoman civil servant in Rumelia. In first instance the new Emperor was a harmless old duffer from Phalz going for highest ever honour score in Glori du Roi.  In other one the the German Princes even the Catholic Bishop Princes voted for the Elector of Brandenburg /Duke of Prussia (Jason 1 with high military and diplomatic reputation) in a bit of a panic after Ottoman light cavalry got too border with Bavaria.

It should also be noted that the Holy Roman Emperor has to be a man so when Maria-Teresia became historically Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary etc, etc she could not be elected Holy Roman Emperor and it was her Husband who was elected HRE.  Technically the House of Hapsburg then changed to that of Hapsburg-Lorraine.  In G7 something like this could happen with the Emperor Josef only having daughters, so with the eldest daughter probably going to marry the heir of the Duke of Savoy rather than the Duke of Lorraine the official title for the Austrian Line will be Hapsburg-Savoy.

Of course in a real crisis the Electors could always go for the younger brother of the current Emperor rather than his son in law and elect the cute, cuddly Charles von Hapsburg of Spain.  But it would probably have to be a real crisis!!

Very interesting, thanks Stuart.  So if I've understood this correctly, the consequence of (a) and (b) is that the highest title Austria could claim (if not the emperor) is King of Bohemia.  In G7 (c) hasn't happened as far as I know, (d) is also somewhat uncertain given there was Prince Rakozci who I seem to recall was rather interested in Hungarian independence.

The requirement that only a man could be elected emperor would seem to throw the whole thing wide open in G7.  Were the titles in (a) and (b) able to be inherited by the female line? - I suspect they were, in which case the Hapsburg inherited titles would not pass to Prince Victor.  If Savoy is an Elector (and Prince Victor inherited the crown of Savoy) then presumably he could stand for election as emperor on that basis, but he would not be a Hapsburg emperor.

I can imagine that under the circumstances that Austria became inactive (or made such a diplomatic mess that he lost the support of the other electors, possibly by getting involved in an unpopular or unwinnable war, or by antagonizing other powerful positions through mistreating their subjects or trade bans), there would be plenty of possible candidates.  Bavaria has never been reticent in seeking to restore the fortunes of the Wittlesbachs and in contrast to Emperor Leoplod proved himself a capable commander.  Prussia could also stand, although perhaps a more likely protestant candidate would come from the Kalmar Union?  And of course there is always the threat that Spain (in her capacity as Duke of Flanders?) could stand simply to maintain a Hapsburg claim.  The main reason to reject the Spanish candidate would be the risk of war with France, but since that seems to be a semi-permanent feature of G7, I guess that is not a major concern - Spain can just give millions in bribes to get the result of the election that she wants.

Stuart Bailey wrote:PS Did not play Poland exactly but did play Saxony (pity about x2 early famines in a row killing the position) who's Elector in 1700 is also the King of Poland.  This additional title gave zero extra income which meant I was trying to run a small and a medium-large position with resources of a small position.  Did however allow me to recruit and invest in Poland and not get by recruiting parties arrested.  Was also able to inspect and even order NPC Polish Troops to drill.

Was also able to use by Royal Power to call meetings of Sajem (in oath said I had too) and control what was being voted on.  Rather than put forward proposals which would then get voted down or vetoed by Agema NPC's (Major Nobles) my Augustus favoured meetings of full Sajem on horse back.  Speaches by various of my NPC's on pro/cons and a single vote on range of possible options with Royalty giving no directions then have a piss up with the minor nobility.

He also reinforced various garrisons with elements of his Royal Guard and made appointments - so Danzig for instance was reinforced by 3 Elite footguards and 100 locally raised FC and it's Castillion is the brother of one of King Augustus Royal Mistresses who also lives in Manor House in city with one of his kids.

Got impression that as King I could do nothing at all outside frontiers of the Commonwealth with Polish forces unless I could some how come up with cash to hire them........Cossack Hetmen in Ukraine would have been happy to hire me 200 Squadrons of Light Horse.  So starting with pretty much zero ability to project power but loads and loads of stood down troops.  Perhaps if Ottomans at gates of Vienna and Pope & Emperor willing to put hand in pockets might have been able to do something.

In event of invasion of the Commonwealth rather than a NPC defence I got impression that Richard would have been happy to accept by money/orders and have me run the defence rather than a NPC.  Players can make their own opinion on which would be the harder military challenge?

I have noticed that Richard has pretty much lifted my Rumelian G2 standing orders and tactic's and used them for NPC Rumelians in other games.  Probably because he got so used to Rumelians acting in a certain way.  Wonder if Polish defence will follow suit?  Small garrisons helped by elements of Royal Guard and a few skirmishing border patrols trying to earn time for the Sajem to decide if they are going to fight or not?

Might be a walk over?  Might be 30 Squadrons of Elite Noble Winged Hussar Lancers smashing into your rear of flank trying to cut a hole for hordes of Pancerni and Cossacks.

Perhaps Saxony-Poland is only playable as a 'team' position?  It is a shame that Poland is not active more often, but if it is viewed as too difficult then despite its potential, we will never know.  It sounds like the first task for any ruler of Poland is to change the way it works so that you can use its resources to run the country properly.  I suppose the risk is that you trigger a civil war and then find part of the position deserts to another, but that is always possible if the change is radical.  From your previous description of Poland's strength, it sounds as if it would be worth it, even if you then had to retake defected provinces.

It certainly sounds to me like Poland would be very difficult to conquer.  If the king died in combat (or suffered military defeats) then the nobles would elect another who was able to obtain foreign support and assist them in repelling the invader.  In times of crisis it is normally easier to centralise and reform political processes/institutions so Poland may quickly become far more governable and be able to use its military power.  The net result would be a more powerful Poland who was a valuable ally to whichever nation helped them, and possibly a future source of mercenary troops?  Invading Poland would therefore be a major diplomatic blunder.  But of course that has never stopped some players from trying.

Papa Clement wrote:
Very interesting, thanks Stuart.  So if I've understood this correctly, the consequence of (a) and (b) is that the highest title Austria could claim (if not the emperor) is King of Bohemia.  In G7 (c) hasn't happened as far as I know, (d) is also somewhat uncertain given there was Prince Rakozci who I seem to recall was rather interested in Hungarian independence.

The requirement that only a man could be elected emperor would seem to throw the whole thing wide open in G7.  Were the titles in (a) and (b) able to be inherited by the female line? - I suspect they were, in which case the Hapsburg inherited titles would not pass to Prince Victor.  If Savoy is an Elector (and Prince Victor inherited the crown of Savoy) then presumably he could stand for election as emperor on that basis, but he would not be a Hapsburg emperor.

I can imagine that under the circumstances that Austria became inactive (or made such a diplomatic mess that he lost the support of the other electors, possibly by getting involved in an unpopular or unwinnable war, or by antagonizing other powerful positions through mistreating their subjects or trade bans), there would be plenty of possible candidates.  Bavaria has never been reticent in seeking to restore the fortunes of the Wittlesbachs and in contrast to Emperor Leoplod proved himself a capable commander.  Prussia could also stand, although perhaps a more likely protestant candidate would come from the Kalmar Union?  And of course there is always the threat that Spain (in her capacity as Duke of Flanders?) could stand simply to maintain a Hapsburg claim.  The main reason to reject the Spanish candidate would be the risk of war with France, but since that seems to be a semi-permanent feature of G7, I guess that is not a major concern - Spain can just give millions in bribes to get the result of the election that she wants.

After the Imperial title which is technically - King of the Romans or Emperor Elect unless crowned in Rome by the Pope in which case its Holy Roman Emperor - the priority order of Hapsburg Titles (held by Austrian Branch) would be I) King of Hungary II) King of Bohemia III) King of Croatia.

In theory with the exception of the title of Holy Roman Emperor/King of the Romans all of the other lands and titles can be inherited by a female who can rule in her own right. Same situation as in England with Queen Anne or Victoria being the ruling Monarch rather than their husbands. Though it should be noted that Queen Victoria did not become the Elector of Hanover due to her sex.

When later in the C18 the Austrian Branch of the House of Hapsburg did end up with a female heir (Maria Theresa) this was exactly what happened with her husband being elected to the Imperial Title. Though it should be noted that at the time not everyone agreed (or rather went back on what they had agreed earlier) and it triggered the War of the Austrian Succession. You will probably have to read a book on the War of the Austrian Succession to work out what various people claimed. Though it always seems to me that the Prussian claim to Silesia boiled down too "I have a big Army and I am happy to use it while you are otherwise busy" and English policy was basically "What side are the French on? We are on the other side! Anyone know what this war is actually about?".

Spanish position in G7 would be if something happened to the Emperor Josef in G7 his eldest daughter would be his heir apart from too the Imperial title and if anyone tries to steal even one inch of her inheritence her uncle Charles von Hapsburg is going to hit them with everything he can muster. Who Spain would support in the Imperial Election would "depend" if active Austrian neice is married Spain will back her husband. Queen of Spain sister is wed too the Elector of Bavaria so could accept the a Elector of Bavaria as HRE. With all due respect too the current King of Sweden-Denmark and to the Elector of Brandenburg (King in Prussia) they are both Protestant and while technically and in game nothing stops a Protestant from being elected Emperor any state with a Cardinal as first minister like G7 Spain is never going to be keen on a Protestant Emperor.

Anyone who suggests that Spanish Diplomats might try and bribe Catholic-Bishop Electors in such an election is spouting a - vile (but probably true) charge against the honour of Richards NPC Bishop-Princes who we all know to be fine upstanding chaps not at all influenced by mere material considerations.

Ref the Rakozci - Agema has published a interesting little booklet on the Hungarian Revolts and the part played by the Rakozci family who were the leading family in Transylvania. Originally part of the Kingdom of Hungary, Transylvania was split off as a seperate vassel state in 1533 and its Prince played a leading roll on the Protestant side in the early part of the 30 year War with the support of the Sultan (who was otherwise busy with Persia). It then rejoined Hungary in 1629 but due to continued Ottoman influence and Protection became a stronghold for Protestant belief in Hungary.

Oddly it was the Hapsburg refusal to dispute Turkish possession of Transylvania which triggered the 1670 Revolt in Hungary. But when they did recover the place attempts to get the Hungarian Nobility to pay tax's to help cover the costs and a reduction in religious concessions to former border areas on basis that they were no longer on the border triggered further revolts including those lead by Prince Rakozci and earlier one lwhich involved his parents.

In many ways the Hungarian revolts like the earlier revolt in Bohemia which started the thirty years war look a lot like what you would probably get in Poland if the Monarch tries to enforce greater central control over Noble Diets such as getting them to pay tax and reduce religious liberty. They get really anti and start calling in outside help against "Tyranny".........even though some of the people they are asking for help like the King of France, Ottoman Sultan and the Czar are much more tyrannical than the Governments they are revolting against. Though that did not stop it working for the American rebels in the 1770's when they called in the French and Spanish Bourbons to save them from having to pay tax and enforce freedom of religion and freedom to rip up treaties with Native tribes.

Thank you Stuart.  So if I've got this right, when Joseph gets gnawed to death by a lot of angry goats, Maria Josepha becomes Queen of Bohemia and Croatia (and possibly Queen of Hungary if she was elected as such by the Hungarian Diet).  Her husband Prince Victor is still Prince Victor or King consort of Bohemia and Croatia (and possibly Hungary)?  In the likely event that Prince Victor is not elected King of the Romans, Spain might back Prince Victor or Bavaria (who is married to his sister), but would oppose a Protestant candidate from either Prussia or the Kalmar Union.  Of course given he was rather sickly and historically died in 1715, he may not even survive long enough to be married let alone produce an heir which would therefore ensure that there could be no Austrian candidate elected, thus ending the Hapsburg line of emperors.  That would seem to make Bavaria the favourite Catholic candidate which Spain would be quite happy about even though that would mean a non-Hapsburg emperor.  Prince Max, having much more common sense and conscious of the need to stay on the right side of Rome, would not have any problem going to Rome to be crowned and submitting to Papal authority.

For there to be a protestant King of the Romans, Prussia and the Kalmar Union would have to decide between them which was going forward and then get sufficient votes from Catholic electors who were fed up with Austria and the Hapsburgs.  The trouble is that if Prussia and Austria both attack Poland, that will reduce their standing with the Hapsburg block within the HRE which may well splinter despite Spanish money.  Some may well be encouraged to back Bavaria (so long as he stays out of a war with Poland), but it won't take many to side with the Kalmar candidate for him to get a majority.  So it is quite possible that the next King of the Romans will be a protestant and that the end of Hapsburg dominance of central Europe is in sight.  It is doubtful whether the Kalmar candidate would go and pay homage to Rome so he can be referred to as Holy Roman Emperor, but we have seen in another game just how tough Sweden can be so I suspect there would not be that many arguments.  Would England back the Kalmar candidate - honestly don't know.  Possibly, just to get rid of the Hapsburg influence, but it would change the balance of power in Europe considerably.  It would also depend on how nice Bavaria was to England.

All I need now is a lot of angry goats ...

In game terms holding the title of Holy Roman Emperor or King of the Romans if you want to be more exact and have not arranged a day trip too Rome gains you exactly nothing in material terms.

In fact some some players just view it as a hollow crown and as a black hole for their money and time which dumps them with a load of additional problems and no additional resources to deal with them. And they can not see the point or benefit in trying to do anything with the title or Imperial bodies like the Aulic Council etc. This was certainly the view of the first Emperor in G7 who had very, very little interest in the Imperial Title or in Imperial diets etc. He and many others view take position that they are playing "Austria" or perhaps head of the Hapsburg family and only things under their direct control matters or of dynastic interest matters.

This view may seem particularly realistic for Austrian players who are focused on events in the East in either in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or more likely with an Ottoman Empire showing signs of aggression. All regions which are outside the HRE and for whom the Princes of the HRE show zero interest in the provision of troops and money for. An unspoken deal of I have to protect the Empire but the Empire will do sod all to protect me in Hungary, Croatia etc may not seem like a very good deal too many players who see things from a Austrian rather than an Imperial view.

For very Austrian-centric players who measure things in terms of pure military and land paying them direct taxes and perhaps dream of starting with the strongest power in Germany and bringing the Germany under their direct rule with a bit of "blood and Iron" the Imperial Title and all of the stuff linked too it is a bit of a pain in that you can not even take over a city let alone an additional province or two without everyone moaning and your honour going down in an alarming fashion. Such players tend to view their "honour" score as a bit pointless as well but object too Hungarian revolts and the like which a low score seems to trigger.

The other problem with the Imperial title are those triggered by the French wanting to cut bits off the Empire in the West or aggressive Princes who are part of the Empire (Bavaria, Sweden and Prussia are the usual suspects) wanting to take over other parts of the Empire. And you have taken this poxy oath to stop them and protect all of these annoying Princes in places like Baden, Lorraine, Mecklenburg who mean sod all to you. But you may put a fairly high value on not falling out with the French, Swedes, Prussians etc. Esp if you do not wish too see Swedish and French military training missions showing up in the Ottoman Empire. While the Sultan and his favoured Rumelian boot boy fill their harems and courts with Hungarian exiles.

The above are the in game problems of holding the Imperial Title, so what is the advantage of holding the Imperial Title I here you cry? In a word I would suggest "HONOUR" I am unable to prove this 100% but has anyone noticed how if the Holy Roman Emperor shows respect for the Empire and is even a bit active he has to work really hard not to end up in at least the top three on the honour chart (bit like the Pope really). In G7 the Emperor while climbing the table is not in the top three but as his father (The last Emperor) did rip up a perfectly valid treaty with France to try and save his in the event double dealing, back stabbing, Protestant English allies like Godolphin, Churchill and yes indirectly even Martel and the HWIC. He had a lot of to come back from!

Honour used too be very closely linked to military preformance but now it seems a lot more vague and how much value (if any) a particular player puts on his honour score is going to vary. But I like to think it plays a part when the Knights of Bungundy and the other massed and perfectly trained, equiped and mounted Cavalry of the House of Hapsburg are called upon go full El-Cid and charge into the massed ranks of their foes and the rapiers start to flash. I may be totally wrong in this respect but perhaps we can find out if Lord Peterborough even stops hiding on Islands, Ships etc and fights like a man on a fair field?

Think the problem for non Hapsburg Emperors is that they may gain honour from the title when all is going well. But unless like Jason 1 in G2 who had spent years and years building up Prussia they may lack the resources to deal with the problems the Emperor is surposed to deal with. So while it is perfectly possible for say a Bavarian to be Emperor how effect will he be if the French decide to annex the west bank of the Rhine?

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Think the problem for non Hapsburg Emperors is that they may gain honour from the title when all is going well.  But unless like Jason 1 in G2 who had spent years and years building up Prussia they may lack the resources to deal with the problems the Emperor is surposed to deal with.  So while it is perfectly possible for say a Bavarian to be Emperor how effect will he be if the French decide to annex the west bank of the Rhine?

If you want another example of a non-Hapsburg HRE in the games, don't forget G3 where Hanover ended up as HRE...and its first act was to demand Denmark hand over Holstein (I was Denmark at that time but for personal reasons had to drop the game shortly after)

Jason2 wrote:

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Think the problem for non Hapsburg Emperors is that they may gain honour from the title when all is going well.  But unless like Jason 1 in G2 who had spent years and years building up Prussia they may lack the resources to deal with the problems the Emperor is supposed to deal with.  So while it is perfectly possible for say a Bavarian to be Emperor how effective will he be if the French decide to annex the west bank of the Rhine?

If you want another example of a non-Hapsburg HRE in the games, don't forget G3 where Hanover ended up as HRE...and its first act was to demand Denmark hand over Holstein (I was Denmark at that time but for personal reasons had to drop the game shortly after)

I hope you said 'no' - I take it he had no reason to demand Holstein.  This is one reason I don't like the HRE as a concept - there is always someone who thinks he can pick off the smaller nations instead of just working within the institutions to form a tighter defensive alliance.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
In game terms holding the title of Holy Roman Emperor or King of the Romans if you want to be more exact and have not arranged a day trip too Rome gains you exactly nothing in material terms.

In fact some some players just view it as a hollow crown and as a black hole for their money and time which dumps them with a load of additional problems and no additional resources to deal with them. And they can not see the point or benefit in trying to do anything with the title or Imperial bodies like the Aulic Council etc. This was certainly the view of the first Emperor in G7 who had very, very little interest in the Imperial Title or in Imperial diets etc. He and many others view take position that they are playing "Austria" or perhaps head of the Hapsburg family and only things under their direct control matters or of dynastic interest matters.

This view may seem particularly realistic for Austrian players who are focused on events in the East in either in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or more likely with an Ottoman Empire showing signs of aggression. All regions which are outside the HRE and for whom the Princes of the HRE show zero interest in the provision of troops and money for. An unspoken deal of I have to protect the Empire but the Empire will do sod all to protect me in Hungary, Croatia etc may not seem like a very good deal too many players who see things from a Austrian rather than an Imperial view.

For very Austrian-centric players who measure things in terms of pure military and land paying them direct taxes and perhaps dream of starting with the strongest power in Germany and bringing the Germany under their direct rule with a bit of "blood and Iron" the Imperial Title and all of the stuff linked too it is a bit of a pain in that you can not even take over a city let alone an additional province or two without everyone moaning and your honour going down in an alarming fashion. Such players tend to view their "honour" score as a bit pointless as well but object too Hungarian revolts and the like which a low score seems to trigger.

The other problem with the Imperial title are those triggered by the French wanting to cut bits off the Empire in the West or aggressive Princes who are part of the Empire (Bavaria, Sweden and Prussia are the usual suspects) wanting to take over other parts of the Empire. And you have taken this poxy oath to stop them and protect all of these annoying Princes in places like Baden, Lorraine, Mecklenburg who mean sod all to you. But you may put a fairly high value on not falling out with the French, Swedes, Prussians etc. Esp if you do not wish too see Swedish and French military training missions showing up in the Ottoman Empire. While the Sultan and his favoured Rumelian boot boy fill their harems and courts with Hungarian exiles.

The above are the in game problems of holding the Imperial Title, so what is the advantage of holding the Imperial Title I here you cry? In a word I would suggest "HONOUR" I am unable to prove this 100% but has anyone noticed how if the Holy Roman Emperor shows respect for the Empire and is even a bit active he has to work really hard not to end up in at least the top three on the honour chart (bit like the Pope really). In G7 the Emperor while climbing the table is not in the top three but as his father (The last Emperor) did rip up a perfectly valid treaty with France to try and save his in the event double dealing, back stabbing, Protestant English allies like Godolphin, Churchill and yes indirectly even Martel and the HWIC. He had a lot of to come back from!

Honour used too be very closely linked to military performance but now it seems a lot more vague and how much value (if any) a particular player puts on his honour score is going to vary. But I like to think it plays a part when the Knights of Burgundy and the other massed and perfectly trained, equipped and mounted Cavalry of the House of Hapsburg are called upon go full El-Cid and charge into the massed ranks of their foes and the rapiers start to flash. I may be totally wrong in this respect but perhaps we can find out if Lord Peterborough even stops hiding on Islands, Ships etc and fights like a man on a fair field?

I think you are being a bit pessimistic here, Stuart.  From what I recall, the previous emperor (Leoplod) in G7 did gain benefits from being Emperor - he attacked Prussia and Saxony when they attempted to cede, thus trying to keep the empire together (I may not have liked this, but I can't deny he was at least attempting to act for what he thought was the good of the Empire); he also mobilised the Reichsarmee (again, I thought he was acting illegally in the way he used it to attack outside the borders of the Empire, but it was an example of how the inactive nations of the HRE did provide support).  Perhaps the reason why JFlower was so successful as Emperor was because he put the time in to encourage smaller nations, work with the institutions and not simply make demands of them?  If he can do that then it is normal for him to be at or near the top of the honour table which does probably have benefits beyond the battlefield.  Of course the thing about the honour table is that it isn't easy to work out how far apart each position is and if a player has done really well and then dropped, he remains in that position for years simply because active players inevitably make decisions which negatively impact on their honour.  I do sometimes wonder if the way to get to the top of the honour table is just to hold banquets every month, avoid war, criticize religious opponents, and write the occasional piece for the newspaper - it is less an 'honour' table than a 'boredom' table since if every player did that the game would become very boring indeed!

Ultimately if a player just wants to play Austria and ignore the Imperial side of things then he can always resign his title of Emperor and let someone else be elected.  So he may lose a few honour points, but it would give him the freedom to play in a slightly different way which seems like a decent trade-off to me if, as Stuart suggests, the benefits of the title are so few.  From the wider perspective a non Hapsburg emperor would end any Hapsburg-Bourbon feud and keep the HRE out of war unless facing a France determined on conquest.  Or alternatively he could just disband the Empire and its institutions, allowing each country to go their separate way.  This may well mean a free-for-all as active smaller nations try to annex their neighbours, but the players concerned may prefer it gives them a better game?  I don't know of any game when this has been tried, but I suspect it would be a very popular move and any initial honour loss would be regained rather quickly. There would be nothing to stop smaller German states coming together in a defensive alliance of some kind, signing free trade treaties, etc, just that they would be doing it without having an Emperor and all the confusion of the institutions.

Perhaps give Austrians in g10 some pointers how easy the honour table is for the Emperor and Austria. Austria is not even in the top ten now.

April 1716 newspaper has arrived, and non players will be pleased to read that there have been no Russian shipping losses this month.  This will have to be a rather abridged writeup due to real world issues, but …

The first 2 pages are full of exciting reports of 2 naval engagements between the Royal Navy and what passes for the Spanish navy.

The first of these concerns Torrington’s fleet which had been off Gibraltar delivering PoW back to Spain.  It had been delayed here for some time due to Spanish intransigence, and now we know why – so Admiral Antonio de Guzman’s 35SoL could ambush an already damaged fleet in breach of the truce which was understood to have existed.  Having waited for the wind to be in his favour Guzman attacked and with a lucky shot caught the rear English ship whose magazine exploded.  These things happen, and naturally did not phase Torrington who continued to observe the ceasefire and sailed off as his orders required.  It just goes to prove you can’t trust the Spanish.

The second engagement was rather more violent.  Admiral Benbow’s Red Division of 31SoL and a few transports, was waiting outside Ceuta (the port still being blocked by sunken Spanish Xebecs), supposedly protected by the FC from the walls.  For reasons best known to themselves, the Spanish seemed determined to attack.  Benbow, being a veteran of Spanish trickery, was not having any of it, and having sent the liners out of the way to safety, he had full confidence in his men and ships despite facing a force of 82SoL and 9Frg.  He was slightly disappointed to note that the FC did not engage the enemy, but were busy taking a nap.  Is anyone awake in Ceuta?  It should be noted that no declaration of war has been received from Spain upon England – the actions in the war so far have been between English forces and HWIC forces which are known to use Spanish flags, Ceuta being a HWIC pirate base, not (from the English perspective) a Spanish town.  Indeed the published terms of war actually prohibit England from attacking ships larger than cruiser size on the understanding that HWIC does not possess any lineships.  So there is no real alternative than to conclude that Spain launched a pre-emptive strike on Red Division.  The diplomatic consequences of this are for the next turn rather than this forum writeup (another reason why I must be careful what is revealed here).

The Spanish fleets were commanded by Admiral Sega and the Duc de Palermo (not Guzman who could not have been in 2 battles simultaneously).  As for tactics, whatever the original Spanish plan, it didn’t work.  The 1st Spanish line (Sega’s) rammed into the English ships “with great force, splintering hull timbers, smashing flesh and bone, dismantling cannon and wreaking havoc on the decks.  It was carnage”, while the 2nd Spanish line (Palermo’s) tried to fire on the English ships without hitting Sega’s.  Since Spanish ships are normally armed with carronades, trying to get in close makes tactical sense, but using SoL as rams to try to sink the English that way is a terribly expensive way of doing it.  It also did not work because the Spanish suffered even more damage as they withdrew, trying to get back to Gibraltar.  They thus abandoned their 9Frg which had been trying to get the transports, which were sunk by Benbow’s fleet without difficulty.

It is hard to view this as anything other than a stunning English victory, and Benbow will no doubt be decorated next month.   82SoL crippled so badly at the start of the campaigning season that it is highly unlikely that they will be repaired in time to make a contribution to Spain’s naval effort for the rest of the year.  If, indeed, any made it back to Gibraltar for repairs.  The newspaper simply observes “No lineships of either side had been lost, but we can be certain damage was surely extensive on both sides?”  To throw away what amounts to half of Spain’s naval power in a frankly desperate bungled raid beggars belief.  Strategically it leaves Spain very vulnerable not just in Spain itself, but Italy since the 82SoL almost certainly sailed from Naples.  England remains in possession of Ceuta – Spain’s gamble failed.

Other news this month seems to pale into insignificance, but for the record:

1. a storm off Flanders sank a number of small French cruisers.  After the storm, a couple of English patrols appeared to investigate what had happened and the Spanish turned and fled, almost grounding themselves on sandbanks.  It is hard to imagine this was not also part of Spain’s pre-emptive strike, but in this case it was defeated more by the weather than any deliberate action by England or France.

2. A number of French, Spanish and Austrian ships were reported lost, although it does not go into the causes – whether it was weather or deliberate action, so for this month it would seem unreasonable to award the Tsar’s Our Ships Sank trophy to either France or Spain, the results in that column being a tie.

3. The Earl of Perth has been appointed to replace the late Lord Godolphin as England’s ambassador to Paris and has inherited Esmeralda, the parrot who sees Spanish motives more clearly than some players.  The countesses spoke at length about the appalling treatment they had suffered in Austria.

4. King Frederick of Prussia has celebrated his wedding to Princess Sophia of Hesse-Darmstadt, while also entertaining King Charles of Sweden.

5. There have been various claims and counter-claims of brutality in the continuing war of words between Poland and Russia.  Attempts by Russia to bribe Count Fudala of Lubotyn appear to have backfired.  Jacobite Naval Intelligence is concentrating on other matters this month, but the general impression is that it will probably not end well.

6. A new exchange has been opened in Portugal … does this suggest we have a new player?  If so welcome to the game.

7. The Spanish propaganda machine continued its onslaught by criticizing the situation in Ceuta, especially “Col.Thomas Forster and his piratical cronies” – perhaps this is also a misprint and rather than ‘piratical’ it should read ‘pirate hunting’.  The confusion continued in Madrid where it was reported King Carlos of Spain knighted the Spanish fireship captains who failed in their raid on Benbow’s fleet a couple of months ago.  I suppose it is normal for Spain to reward failure with honour, but to compound the insult by requiring them to dance with the Queen and Infanta is surely guaranteed to give them low morale.  Spanish hypocrisy reached a new peak in Rome where Cardinal Alphonso stressed that “Spain had followed the Pope’s wishes and stopped all privateering” – well I guess now he has embarked on open war, he doesn’t need to sneak around any more?  Just as well Commodore Walton scouted the defences of Oran.

8. An attempt to found a new town in Greenland by Danish criminals has met with failure with thousands of deaths.

9. In Gross Friedrichsburg the governor of Russia Department West, Abram Gannibal, has made some improvements to the town with some interesting statues.

10. At Castle Arguin, a successful negotiation has been concluded to buy 900 slaves, although they appear to have been delivered to a different location.

11. On Jamaica, Jack Matthew and his mother, the ‘duchess’ of Castille fled in disguise.  Major Dormer is now convinced they were indeed Spanish, noting “Spaniards are notoriously slippery”.

12. There is a new map showing trade winds around the Americas which is a most useful addition to those who move fleets around the world.  Should certainly help planning.

So overall one of the best turns England has had in ages, but a real stinker for Spain.  What happens next month will be eagerly awaited.

Ref Papa Clement write up of April 1716 feel that while the Spanish Navy has a lot to ponder last month was not a total "stinker" and the following points should be made:-

1) The truce was local and applied Gibraltar and the hand over over of captives only. Following the English attack on what they claimed was a HWIC base Ceuta what was left of the SPANISH (not HWIC !!!) garrison surrendered and gave their porole not to fight England or France again untill their have been properly exchanged. This means Spain is paying for 3500 troops it can not use untill it obtains 3500 English or French troops/ Royal naval sailors it can swap for its own men. Belief of Spanish High Command was to take some of the English Royal Navy forces which have been being a pain in Spanish waters and crews of prizes for its own men from Ceuta.

Sadly this did not work out but we like in hope!

2) Spanish 2nd fleet based in Cadiz has been attacking waging a campaign against the lines of communication, supply and reinforcement of English Pirate forces (if you are Spanish).......English anti Pirate forces (if you are English and deluded) since these supply lines basically run right past Cadiz. This month Admiral Torrington ran the Spanish counter blockade.

The Spanish successfully outsailed the English and engaged the rear Squadron of Torringtons division, unfortunately they almost all aimed at the very rear English ship a 120 gunner which blew up so no POW's to exchange and the rest of Squadron got away in the dark. Result would see to be a VERY MINOR SPANISH victory which leaves one wondering if the whole rear Squadron had been been overwelmed and Torrington had carried on without turning back to help them what would their Lordships of the Admiralty have to say?

3) Off Ceuta the Spanish 1st (Med) fleet was able to trap Admiral Benbow against a (hostile - Moroccan) lee shore. Obtain the weather guage and fight at its preferred close range and attack while attacking with superior numbers against a force which had been at sea over winter, landed its marines, been becalmed, been in storms and involved in various actions.

Sadly and to the credit of Admiral Benbow he was able to fight off the attack on his lineships, killing a Spanish Admiral in the process. And even more shockingly he was not diverted by the lineship v lineship battle and was able to destroy 9 Spanish Frigates going for the Transports so bang went Spanish effort to swap Navy Transport crews for Gerona Fusiliers etc.

Think what went wrong for Spanish was both attacked from same side of the English ships, what they needed to do was go down both sides of English line so Frigate attack on Transports was sheltered.

Oh hum.........I am basically a commander of Cavalry, Artillery and Light Infantry and its a lot easier getting to see the flash of Spanish Rapiers on land but would have been interesting if Spanish had got to fight a boarding action after Benbow has landed his marines.

Should also be noted that at end of month Spanish Navy back in its very well guarded repair yards.....Benbow has a long sail home and one of his ships has already sunk this month following an accident and their are storms in western approaches.

Result of Ceuta is a clear ENGLISH VICTORY but my feeling is Benbow was a tad lucky! If his name was Benbowski and his fleet had been Russian and trapped on a lee shore after a winter of storms, calms, marine actions etc what would his fleets sickness level now be? Or would it be mostly driftwood

4) Off Flanders the hordes of French light forces giving Flanders fishing fleets a bad time (and Flanders fishermen are linked too the HWIC in what way?) got hit by a large storm which sunk a unknown number of yachts and cutters then with the sails shreaded they were attacked by fast well armed Flanders Frigates out of Dunkirk. The Dunkirkers liberated 12 Flanders Fishing boats and sunk a unknown number of damaged French light cruisers. Like the storm losses French losses are unknown but press reports indicate a mass slaughter.

The Dunkirkers then went on to scatter English cutters before using knowledge of home waters to evade a English line ship and English 40 frigates who arrived too late to save the French from being destroyed.

Result would seem to be MAJOR SPANISH VICTORY and the French and English navies no longer being on speaking terms. Question now is who will sign up for French light forces after a decade of defeats at Persian hands and now this latest disaster.

Stuart Bailey wrote:Ref Papa Clement write up of April 1716 feel that while the Spanish Navy has a lot to ponder last month was not a total "stinker" and the following points should be made:-

1) The truce was local and applied Gibraltar and the hand over over of captives only.  Following the English attack on what they claimed was a HWIC base Ceuta what was left of the SPANISH (not HWIC !!!) garrison surrendered and gave their porole not to fight England or France again untill their have been properly exchanged.  This means Spain is paying for 3500 troops it can not use untill it obtains 3500 English or French troops/ Royal naval sailors it can swap for its own men.  Belief of Spanish High Command was to take some of the English Royal Navy forces which have been being a pain in Spanish waters and crews of prizes for its own men from Ceuta.  

Sadly this did not work out but we like in hope!

2) Spanish 2nd fleet based in Cadiz has been attacking waging a campaign against the lines of communication, supply and reinforcement of English Pirate forces (if you are Spanish).......English anti Pirate forces (if you are English and deluded) since these supply lines basically run right past Cadiz.  This month Admiral Torrington ran the Spanish counter blockade.

The Spanish successfully outsailed the English and engaged the rear Squadron of Torringtons division, unfortunately they almost all aimed at the very rear English ship a 120 gunner which blew up so no POW's to exchange and the rest of Squadron got away in the dark.  Result would see to be a VERY MINOR SPANISH victory which leaves one wondering if the whole rear Squadron had been been overwelmed and Torrington had carried on without turning back to help them what would their Lordships of the Admiralty have to say?

As I mentioned in my previous post, there are limits to what I can write on here without giving away the next moves before they appear in game.  However, I clearly disagree with Stuart's reasoning.

The point about lines of communication is also somewhat incorrect since any messages/supplies could be sent through France and from Marseilles to Ceuta.

In respect of Torrington's fleet, I don't expect every combat to be a victory without loss, so the loss of a single ship to a lucky shot from the enemy is always a risk and the kind of thing that just happens.  Had the wind been in favour of such a move and Torrington disobeyed orders and attacked the Spanish, it would have probably been an interesting engagement.  Torrington had been at sea for longer than Benbow so I suspect the Spanish may have come off best, although given the circumstances and superior discipline of the English fleet, it was perhaps more likely to end as a draw with the Spanish withdrawing to Cadiz for repairs and Torrington being blown out into the middle of the Atlantic.  In terms of ships lost, the engagement probably counts as a very minor Spanish victory, but not one that the Spanish can claim was down to any tactical or strategic brilliance on their part, simply encountering Torrington with the wind in their favour.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
3) Off Ceuta the Spanish 1st (Med) fleet was able to trap Admiral Benbow against a (hostile - Moroccan) lee shore.  Obtain the weather guage and fight at its preferred close range and attack while attacking with superior numbers against a force which had been at sea over winter, landed its marines, been becalmed, been in storms and involved in various actions.

Sadly and to the credit of Admiral Benbow he was able to fight off the attack on his lineships,  killing a Spanish Admiral in the process.  And even more shockingly he was not diverted by the lineship v lineship battle and was able to destroy 9 Spanish Frigates going for the Transports so bang went Spanish effort to swap Navy Transport crews for Gerona Fusiliers etc.

Think what went wrong for Spanish was both attacked from same side of the English ships, what they needed to do was go down both sides of English line so Frigate attack on Transports was sheltered.

Oh hum.........I am basically a commander of Cavalry, Artillery and Light Infantry and its a lot easier getting to see the flash of Spanish Rapiers on land but would have been interesting if Spanish had got to fight a boarding action after Benbow has landed his marines.

Should also be noted that at end of month Spanish Navy back in its very well guarded repair yards.....Benbow has a long sail home and one of his ships has already sunk this month following an accident and their are storms in western approaches.  

Result of Ceuta is a clear ENGLISH VICTORY but my feeling is Benbow was a tad lucky!  If his name was Benbowski and his fleet had been Russian and trapped on a lee shore after a winter of storms, calms, marine actions etc what would his fleets sickness level now be?  Or would it be mostly driftwood?

This was the action which had the potential to pay dividends for Spain - it was clearly deliberate and planned, attacking with overwhelming odds against a relatively new fleet under an experienced commander.  Given the English fleet was against the shore and (supposedly) protected by FC, there was never any possibility to launch some kind of flanking attack on the transports or to rake the English ships.  Worse than that, to use a SoL as a galley and try to ram the enemy betrays a complete lack of confidence in the quality of Spanish sailors.  It was never going to work, nor was it necessary given Spain's superior numbers.  A ram could be justified if your ship is heavier and trapped, and you are trying to break out (basically because you have no choice), so ironically if the transports were not an issue, Benbow could have tried to smash through the Spanish lines himself, but it makes no sense at all when you outnumber the enemy and have plenty of sea to position in.  It read to me as though you were trying to repeat what you did last month with the fireships, but this time using SoL as fireships to break the formation.  Absolutely nuts.

To waste half of the Spanish battlefleet in this way is something I will never understand - it was not just a case of a bit of bad luck, but a plan which was completely flawed at every level and a strategic disaster for Spain.

If I was in Spain's position would I have attacked Benbow's fleet ... possibly, but certainly not in the way Stuart did.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
4) Off Flanders the hordes of French light forces giving Flanders fishing fleets a bad time (and Flanders fishermen are linked too the HWIC in what way?) got hit by a large storm which sunk a unknown number of yachts and cutters then with the sails shreaded they were attacked by fast well armed Flanders Frigates out of Dunkirk.  The Dunkirkers liberated 12 Flanders Fishing boats and sunk a unknown number of damaged French light cruisers.  Like the storm losses French losses are unknown but press reports indicate a mass slaughter.

The Dunkirkers then went on to scatter English cutters before using knowledge of home waters to evade a English line ship and English 40 frigates who arrived too late to save the French from being destroyed.

Result would seem to be MAJOR SPANISH VICTORY and the French and English navies no longer being on speaking terms.  Question now is who will sign up for French light forces after a decade of defeats at Persian hands and now this latest disaster.

I don't see how you can claim a major Spanish victory when the damage was done to an unknown number of light cruisers in a storm.  English cutters were not sunk, but merely sailed away.  It was a risky manoeuvre for the Spanish ships to sail over the sandbanks, but one that this time they got away with.  Not that they really had any choice given the position of the English forces.  It could have easily ended with Spanish cruisers stranded on sandbanks.  So this time the Spanish navy was lucky with the weather and managed to run away.  If the Spanish navy counts running away as a major Spanish victory, then I hope they have many more such victories.  As for the old rivalry between English and French navies, that is largely ancient history.  Nothing here was planned as a joint operation - I was not even expecting the French navy to be in the area after last month.  Like the Spanish army, the Royal Navy may prefer to operate on its own and not rely on allies, but of course any Spanish ship sent to the bottom of the sea is a positive for England.

In reply to Papa Clement comments:

- Lucky shot? The English 1st rate which went down was sturn raked by a whole fleet. Basically the Spanish Admiral crossed the T of the English line and all of his ships delieved a very hard attack all of which seems to have hit the single ship in the English rear but then left the two fleets sailing on a different courses and ended the encounter very quickly. In circumstances of English ships having been at Sea for a lot longer than the Spanish force which engaged them this was probably a tactical error by the Spanish but is in line with what they have been doing for a while. Basically any orders, supplies, reinforcements to Peterborough and English Naval forces in off the South of Spain are sailing past most of the Spanish home fleets either in the Med or in the Atlantic.

- Raming at Ceuta? Fairly sure that the only ships which may have ramed anything was a English lineships which rammed the harbour boon and bounced and some Spanish fire ships which were aimed at the English transports. Not 100% sure of best fire ship tactics but think the usual tactic was not too ram but to try and run the fire ship alongside the target and try to use grappling hooks and tangled up yards. While at the same time setting fire to the fire ship and getting off her.

Rather in the last action rather than raming into ships and trying to board in the smoke Corsair style as reported in the Paper the Spanish just sailed very slowly down a fairly static English line and exchanged broadsides at point blank range. Point blank in Naval terms is when the guns do not have to be raised to give extra range and the Spanish Naval gun sights come into play. Of course as Papa Clement will no doubt point out that if you can not hit a target the size of a line ship at close range and in fairly sheltered waters without a Atlantic swell to worry about you are probably a pretty crap gunner. So any benefit of fighting at optium range for Spanish gun sights etc was probably minor and like most naval battles of this period between line ships the result was a draw. With the lucky shot being the one which removed one of the Spanish Admirals legs, though King James would no doubt consider that this is just things getting a bit more even in view of the number of English Admirals who have gone down with their flagships over the years.

- As for what in Brussels they are calling the Great Flanders Banks Cutter shoot. Think Papa Clement is looking at things only from a English point of view when too the Royal House of Hapsburg viewpoint the threat is France, France, France & France followed by the Ottomans with English piracy, spies with water colours and drunken elderly Anglian bishops dropping dead in the street well down the list of possible annoyance.

Couple of months back a couple of hundred small French Corsair vessels showed up off the Flanders coast. Indeed 4 Spanish Frigates making for a home port sunk 14 of them when they got in the way.

Not sure why the French corsairs are using very small 40 crew craft but assume the calculation is that a armed cutter can take a merchant ship as easily as a frigate and you get five cutters for each frigate plus they can harrass inshore fishing and coastal craft in shallow waters like the Flanders banks, Baltic coastal and Dutch inshore waters. Unfortunately, if they vulnerable to storm damage and against faster and much better armed opponents like Frigates they are sitting ducks.

Not sure how many ships the French Corsairs lost but if 4 accounted for 14 then it seems reasonable to assume that 30 would have got at least three each since reports had the Cutters as easy targets due to storm damage too their sails and rigging. With many others believed to have gone down in the storms this would seem to be a disaster of Russian type propotions for the light forces of the French Navy and on a par with some of their worst defeats by the Persians such as the sinking of the French Galley fleet.

At very least knowing that you are a sitting duck has probably ruined the morale of many other crews bit like French galley and corvette crews in open Eastern waters faced with Persian two deck frigates. Note the English now using frigate to escort cutters.

Stuart Bailey wrote:In reply to Papa Clement comments:

- Lucky shot?  The English 1st rate which went down was stern raked by a whole fleet.  Basically the Spanish Admiral crossed the T of the English line and all of his ships delivered a very hard attack all of which seems to have hit the single ship in the English rear but then left the two fleets sailing on a different courses and ended the encounter very quickly.  In circumstances of English ships having been at Sea for a lot longer than the Spanish force which engaged them this was probably a tactical error by the Spanish but is in line with what they have been doing for a while.  Basically any orders, supplies, reinforcements to Peterborough and English Naval forces in off the South of Spain are sailing past most of the Spanish home fleets either in the Med or in the Atlantic.

According to the newspaper, the ship absorbed being repeatedly raked by Spanish lineships, and was disabled, on fire and eventually blew up after its magazine caught fire.  I don't know whether Guzman's SoL were standard 70-gunners or the 100/120-gunners normally preferred by the Spanish 'navy', but if it takes 35 broadsides at optimal angle of fire to cripple a single English SoL, then the Spanish must have been particularly bad shots.  Had Torrington sailed with his cruisers, then no doubt they would have formed a screen to protect the lineship, but he was under orders not to violate the ceasefire agreed with Spain.

As I mentioned above it is hard for me to discuss this engagement in more detail without revealing what my orders will be next turn.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
- Raming at Ceuta?  Fairly sure that the only ships which may have ramed anything was a English lineships which rammed the harbour boon and bounced and some Spanish fire ships which were aimed at the English transports.  Not 100% sure of best fire ship tactics but think the usual tactic was not too ram but to try and run the fire ship alongside the target and try to use grappling hooks and tangled up yards.  While at the same time setting fire to the fire ship and getting off her.  

Rather in the last action rather than raming into ships and trying to board in the smoke Corsair style as reported in the Paper the Spanish just sailed very slowly down a fairly static English line and exchanged broadsides at point blank range.  Point blank in Naval terms is when the guns do not have to be raised to give extra range and the Spanish Naval gun sights come into play.  Of course as Papa Clement will no doubt point out that if you can not hit a target the size of a line ship at close range and in fairly sheltered waters without a Atlantic swell to worry about you are probably a pretty crap gunner.  So any benefit of fighting at optimum range for Spanish gun sights etc was probably minor and like most naval battles of this period between line ships the result was a draw.  With the lucky shot being the one which removed one of the Spanish Admirals legs, though King James would no doubt consider that this is just things getting a bit more even in view of the number of English Admirals who have gone down with their flagships over the years.

The newspaper was quite clear about the engagement and it reads to me as though the Spanish rammed into the English ships else the 2nd Spanish line would not have been able to get a clear field of fire.  All I will add is that there is far more to this engagement than I can reveal on here - you will have to wait until next turn when the full horror of your mistake is revealed.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
-  As for what in Brussels they are calling the Great Flanders Banks Cutter shoot.  Think Papa Clement is looking at things only from a English point of view when to the Royal House of Hapsburg viewpoint the threat is France, France, France & France followed by the Ottomans with English piracy, spies with water colours and drunken elderly Anglican bishops dropping dead in the street well down the list of possible annoyance.

Couple of months back a couple of hundred small French Corsair vessels showed up off the Flanders coast.  Indeed 4 Spanish Frigates making for a home port sunk 14 of them when they got in the way.

Not sure why the French corsairs are using very small 40 crew craft but assume the calculation is that a armed cutter can take a merchant ship as easily as a frigate and you get five cutters for each frigate plus they can harass inshore fishing and coastal craft in shallow waters like the Flanders banks, Baltic coastal and Dutch inshore waters.  Unfortunately, if they vulnerable to storm damage and against faster and much better armed opponents like Frigates they are sitting ducks.

Not sure how many ships the French Corsairs lost but if 4 accounted for 14 then it seems reasonable to assume that 30 would have got at least three each since reports had the Cutters as easy targets due to storm damage too their sails and rigging.  With many others believed to have gone down in the storms this would seem to be a disaster of Russian type proportions for the light forces of the French Navy and on a par with some of their worst defeats by the Persians such as the sinking of the French Galley fleet.

At very least knowing that you are a sitting duck has probably ruined the morale of many other crews bit like French galley and corvette crews in open Eastern waters faced with Persian two deck frigates.  Note the English now using frigate to escort cutters.  

I cannot really comment on what the French objectives were or their plan because I haven't had a letter from France this month, but no doubt the loss of a few small ships is not going to be of great significance to the capability of the French navy to achieve its objectives.  The Spanish turned and ran from superior English ships, as the newspaper observes, "risking crossing sandbanks" to get away.  The English frigates did not follow because they did not need to, and no doubt prevented any more losses to an allied navy, while restoring English control of the Channel.

If France is the overwhelming threat to the Hapsburgs then I do find it rather odd that Spain bothered to attack English ships and in doing so put herself at such a strategic disadvantage against France, effectively gifting France the initiative for the rest of this campaigning season.  And to do so while pretending (in Rome, at least) to be negotiating peace, really only leaves one rather unpleasant reason.

I case anyone is thinking about joining G7 and may be thinking the game is dominated by Anglo-Spanish rows...... of no interest to them or the position they may want to run......about Spain offering Martel and the HWIC a home when they found themselves on the side which lost in the War of the English Succession or the harrassment of Spanish fishermen. Think its fair to point out that this may be the most noisy row in G7 by some distance, with both side still making offers and counter offers mostly via the Papal Court which are slowly getting inching closer while both sides and their Parott display a fair about of flair and drama in their diplomatic pleading.

However, in many ways the greater issues in G7 are rather more silent and perhaps of greater concern to many, many other positions in particular G7 has:

1) The silent but deadly Warlord Louis XIV of France - victorious over the English, Dutch and Genoa he hadly ever sends or replies to a letter or says anything about French policy but his dacade and a half of Wars have shown him to be violently anti Hapsburg and his massed armies seem ever ready to march. The Great unanswered questions in G7 are when and where?

Think its generally agreed that to complete French domination of Western Europe at least the King of France needs to defeat the Emperor Josef and his younger brother Charles von Hapsburg King of Spain etc. But in what order and how would seem to be the great question in G7?

France can attack the Hapsburgs in Flanders, Frenche-Comte/Rhineland or in Italy from their recent conquest of Genoa. For many new players it should be noted that all of these territories are in the Holy Roman Empire and the moral pressure will be too get out and fight even if your character would sooner hide under his bed sheets and pretend its nothing to do with him/her. And these are serious French forces who stormed Genoa and burnt 25% of the city down in less than three months.

The other French alternative would be to avoid having to listen to moaning German Envoys and diplomatic problems with Imperial States and just invade Spain and take on what the Czar has called the Spanish reception committee.

2) Meanwhile while the Hapsburg bicker with the English while trying to not shift their focus from the silent but deadly terror that is Bourbon absolutism and fights under the Lilly Banner. In the east the greatest crisis in G7 would seem to be slowly building into a possible partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

- The Czar has charged the native King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with being an extreme Catholic want to be Louis XIV and with mistreatment of his Orthodox subjects in Lithuania. Sub-text Orthodox subjects would be better off under the control of the Czar and the Russian Orthodox Church.

- The Elector of Brandenburg/King in Prussia is believed to believe that the King of Poland wants to rip up the Polish Constitution which provides for Religious Freedom in the Commonwealth (as per Louis XIV tearing up the Edict of Nantes) and oppress Protestant Danzig, Courland etc. Sub-text Prtestants and others in Courland, Royal or West Prussia and Danzig will be much happier under the rule of the Elector and Prussia would then look so much nicer on Maps.

- The King of Sweden (Emperor of the Kulmar Union), Lion of the North etc, etc likes to think that following the crushing of Protestant England and the Protestant UDP by the French he is now the No1 Defender of Protestants. What then is he to do about poor oppressed Protestants in the Commonwealth and putting these upstart Prussians in the place? He also really, really does not want to do anything which annoys the Czar.

- The Holy Roman Emperor does not like the current King of Poland who deposed his Elector of Saxony as King of Poland very much. Since Augustus of Saxony the deposed King of Poland helped save Vienna from the Ottomans alongside a Polish Army paid by the Pope views in Vienna are complex to say tPapal i in 1683 . The Emperor can the Emperor afford to fall out with the Czar and his Elector of Prussia who's support he may need to save the HRE from the French?

If the Commonwealth breaks up will the Emperor try and restore the Catholic and loyal Imperialist to the Kingdom of Poland shorn of its Commonwealth links to Lithuania, Courland etc. Put can the Kingdom of Poland even with Saxony economically survive the loss of Danzig and all its ports for grain export and the like?

It should be noted for anyone considering joining G7 that charges have been made but no actual evidence has been seen of the currently NPC King of Poland doing horrible things to the Polish Constitution or oppressing Orthodox Cossacks and Nobles in Lithuania or Protestants in Danzig etc. Have you ever tried to oppress 200 Squadrons of Cossacks? They tend to make a lot of the type of fuss which gets all over the front page! But the armies do seem to be massing for real, the Russian Propaganda machine is in full flow and Russian agents are getting arrested for trying to bribe Lithuanian Nobles (Hah......a solution......Orthodox men arrested in Lithuanian and their money taken off them..........100% proof that the Orthodox are being oppressed in Lithuania and need to be saved by the Czar! Glad thats cleared up).

What the generally pro Polish French and the Dutch or rely of the Danzig grain trade think of all this is unknown. Likewise what does the Sultan (one of who's titles is Protector of the Cossacks) and his vassels think of a possible massive expansion of Russian power to their north think is also unknown. Along with what is the Elector of Saxony (deposed King of Poland) thinking/plotting.

Players and would be players will no doubt probably find the Eastern crisis a lot more interesting in diplomatic terms than other issues. But may find out more about Naval Warfare from Anglo-Spanish bickering and when Louis XIV makes his move against the Hapsburgs they may find out more about positional and siege warfare in Glory.

It seems Russian tourists trying to enjoy a skiing holiday in Lithuania have been mistakenly arrested as spies. The Tourists were merely trying to look at the local Cathedral & other landmarks. Apparently it seems leaving a tip for the waiter after a pleasant meal & a couple of bottles of wine, has been turned into a "Major Bribe Story" by the local press.

Following the escalation of the War or the Boardrooms for control of the HWIC into a full blown war of The Last Ship Afloat The Russian Navy Cartography Office will be issuing not one but two special additions of maps, one for each side of the conflict. This could help avoid much bloodshed & loss of life as both sides will be able to Geographically Embarrassed, in their own special way.

J Flower wrote:It seems Russian tourists trying to enjoy a skiing holiday in Lithuania have been mistakenly arrested as spies. The Tourists were merely trying to look at the local Cathedral & other landmarks. Apparently it seems leaving a tip for the waiter after a pleasant meal & a couple of  bottles of wine, has been turned into a "Major Bribe Story" by the local press.

Following the escalation  of the War or the Boardrooms for control of the HWIC into a full blown war of The Last Ship Afloat The Russian Navy Cartography Office will be issuing not one but two  special additions of maps, one for each side of the conflict. This could help avoid much bloodshed & loss of life as both sides will be able to Geographically Embarrassed, in their own special way.    

While these things do happen........during the Anglo-Dutch wars one English Admiral managed too run around on the galloper bank just off the Thames and later another English Admiral crashed his fleet into the Sicilly Isles. Still think that for the Spanish Navy to end up geograpically embarrassed in the Straits of Gibraltar would be impressive work by the famous Russian Navy Cartography department since landmarks like the Rock of Gibraltar tend to stand out.

Guess if it was foggy or they were using Russian charts which were upside down they could end up sailing into Tangier or Ceuta in error when aiming for Cadiz or Gibraltar.

Considering the reputation of the Russian Cartography Department if I was one of the lawyers acting for Russian tourists detained for spying in Lithuania. I would be claiming that my client was geographically embarrassed as Vilnus, Varne, Vienna are easy to mix up and transpose on a map and my client was merely trying to find the famous river Danube and view the sights of the famous siege of Vienna so he could paint a water colour.