G7 - France vs. England

Just to clarify it was only England's Baltic Fleet which would have been surrendered, some 58SoL (from memory) out of a total of perhaps 150. Many of those SoL could really be heavy frigates, but are described as SoL in the newspapers. At the moment I think William still has 109SoL in the Humber where they are blockaded and deprived of port facilities, they are dropping to bits. That is the real catastrophe! I agree it was a tough clause, but at the time it was a response to that fleet's actions in denying grain supplies from a 3rd party reaching France to alleviate famine. If the fleet in question had only numbered 5SoL, then it would have only been a case of surrendering 5SoL.

Yes, it made me rather cross

At the time the player for England was writing to France. He had admitted guilt (which he confirmed in public), but refused to make any amends. Although he didn't actually throw down the gauntlet and ask me what I was going to do to about getting satisfaction, his actions certainly left nobody in any doubt of his real feelings. France and England were not at war at the time, so he was simply rubbing salt in the wound. There is only so much provocation any player can put up with.

Yes - stupid certainly.

I consider the famine was caused by the collapse in the canals caused by the non-arrival of the dredger mission. All this might have been a series of uncoordinated blunders rather than a deliberate strategy by the player for England. France could have suffered a famine anyway as that is just part of the game. But with such strained relations anyway, to be that provocative really was pushing me too far.

I hadn't thought of the fleet's actions as a Casus Belli, but now you point it out, it is rather obvious. I like things tidy and the dredger issue was a clearly documented breach which England had not denied and could not deny, whereas it is difficult to prove the actions of the fleet were ordered by the player and not simply a rogue admiral who wanted a few prizes.

You know how thorough I am in preparing a case and the principle that a ruler should keep his word is basic. That principle is what the war was really all about, and this is something certain Hapsburgs still don't understand.

Jason/Deacon, you may both be right - all I can add is that at the time I didn't think about it in those terms. Sometimes I guess a player gets too close to his own position to see other alternatives, and once the propaganda started it was even more difficult to present what was a complicated set of reasons and objectives.

I don't think it would have made any difference to the actions of other players, though, as the fleet's actions were detailed in the original peace terms offered, so everyone who read them were fully aware that it was on the list of French grievances.

Perhaps now you will understand just how difficult a campaign it has been. If I was simply out to destroy England then it would have been much easier, but at each stage I tried to offer each new player terms for peace whilst also negotiating with King James. The more damage I did to England, the longer it would be before England could defend itself and French troops leave. The overall cost to France has been very high, but I don't see I had any choice but to declare war.

Hmm,

in hindsight you have a point! I built the canals after the agreement was made with England and France had fulfilled its part of the bargain. There was nothing complicated there at all to hold the deal up. It took a year to build the canals during which England failed to send the mission, and it was a few more months after that before the canals collapsed. So England had about 18 months to comply with her obligations and each time I asked about it she kept promising all this time that she would send a mission.

I think you have to be prepared to trust the players you are dealing with. If you want to hire mercenaries then you send payment in the expectation those troops will be delivered. If you want to buy grain then you send payment in expectation the grain will be delivered. If you want to swap dredger missions and you send yours, you expect the other party to send theirs. It was a very simple, straightforward commercial deal which France fulfilled and England didn't. I guess I will never know why England didn't. It is very easy to view all players with suspicion and expect them to be hostile (particularly as France!), but in my long experience with the game such attitudes can be counter-productive. There always used to be a certain altruism in the game: if you help others, they help you. And that requires trust. This has changed over the years, but thankfully there are enough 'old school' players out there who operate on the same principles as I do. And that is why France went to war - to defend the principle that a ruler should keep his word. It is a principle so fundamental to life and the game, that it is worth going to war over. Where there is no longer a Court Agema to deal with breaches of treaty, what mechanism is there to encourage players to keep their word, but honesty and personal integrity? If, as a player, you are known for keeping your word then others will have confidence in dealing with you; if you break your word/treaty then how can others trust you not to do it again? If players want to be dishonest then they can play pirate kings where such behaviour is rewarded. Although many rules have changed over the years, I'm fairly sure that is somewhere in the explanation of standards of gameplay expected from players.

It probably seems odd to you, but I didn't want to be inflammatory and wanted good relations with all nations (as I still do). Perhaps having been given the opportunity to cause trouble for France, the player simply took advantage of the situation. If I was naturally touchy and belligerent then I could find excuses every month to declare war on just about anyone. I could, for instance, declare that only blue hats were to be worn at court, then because an ambassador wore a black one, claim the disrespect shown to King Louis was intolerable and declare war! We all have choices as to the game lines we play. I guess back then the player for England decided to be awkward, then when his gambit failed he left the game and other players have paid for his choice ever since.

I don't know.

Stuart - France never acknowledged William (the son), nor was ever obliged to. There are different translations of the Treaty of Ryswick - the historical sticking point seemed to be the translation of the Latin words which in English can mean recognise or acknowledge. I don't have the linguistic skills to debate this aspect further, but suggest that if the best linguists of the time couldn't agree among themselves as to the semantics, it is one of those areas where we'll have to accept there will never be agreement. As an example of how the words recognise and acknowledge mean different things, the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) divided all lands outside Europe between Portugal and Spain. I can acknowledge Spain's claim under that treaty, but I do not recognise Spain's title. Recognition is much deeper, implying acceptance of all the claims of the other party, which historically it is documented that Louis did not. Agreeing not to attack someone does not automatically mean you agree with their right to be ruler, and historically both Louis and Leopold upheld the hereditary principle that the Stuarts were the rightful kings of England. It was one of the few things they agreed on!

I have made it clear throughout that the French interpretation is that Louis promised not to support James Stuart (the father) to regain his throne during the lifetime of William of Orange. However, this obligation ended when the original protagonists (William or James) died, which they both have done now in the game. In the game I have (perhaps predictably) followed the French interpretation of that Treaty, backing James Stuart (the son, the current King James) after the death of his father in 1701, which was the first time I was contacted by James. I think I still have the letter somewhere.

Constitutionally William was not king in his own right, but because he was married to Mary Stuart. France was never obliged to acknowledge William's son following his father's death. In real history, of course, William didn't have a son and the crown passed rather reluctantly to Anne (Stuart). Her reluctance to accept was because she knew her own claim was not as strong as that of her close relative, James! No matter which way you look at it, a Stuart ended up as King/Queen of England.

The terms you refer to regarding the Hapsburgs were withdrawn having been rejected by both sides. France has not published any new terms and is not likely to: as I stated in published comments in the newspapers over the last few months, it is down to the aggressor (Austria) to justify her actions and propose peace to end the separate Austrian-French war. The rules of the forum prevent me from commenting any further on this, so we will all have to wait for developments, frustrating though that may be for many.

Hessian - I don't police this forum, and have never suggested people need my permission to post. I take exception to anyone who suggests so blatantly that my word is not to be trusted, be it within the game or on this forum. You seem to have some personal issue with me or my character. To save you further embarrassment I have referred your comments to the moderators who I am sure will take the appropriate action.