G7 - France vs. England

Having now seen a copy of the latest (May) newspaper, I can understand Basileus' confusion! It does seem unclear which parts of England are declaring for which character and with what objective. However, it perhaps becomes a little clearer when this month’s news is linked to that from previous months.

In England, Churchill’s position is untenable for several reasons:

He first recognised King James, then murdered his father, alienating both sides and polarising Europe. One consequence of this is that various characters have appeared (such as Sir Christopher Myngs and possibly the Duke of Ormonde) who are likely to be spies controlled by other players. These players have their own agendas reinforced by propaganda and are likely to be deliberately obstructing RJC for their own ends. So RJC is not only fighting King James, but factions who could well appear to be supporting him in words, though not in deeds. Trying to make any sense of this must be very hard on the player. It also means that he will be tied up trying to submit orders some of which will be undone or contradicted by these various characters beyond his control. It may be more obvious to RJC than to others, but it is clear that England is not under his control any more. Instead it is being used as a political football by other nations. I do not include France among these nations: as usual, France has the moral high ground. RJC made a settlement with France, though with some of his troops attacking French troops, perhaps in defiance of their orders, it appears that the agreement is being strained. France appears to be honourably holding to that agreement whilst negotiations with King James are taking place. However, it appears naïve to assume that France can conclude positive negotiations with King James that are not to the disadvantage of RJC, and consequently it would make more sense for France to at least contain RJC’s forces so that the relative strength of the position he inherited does not decline during this period of negotiation. That, as Regor suggests requires a greater use of the French navy, though I am not convinced of his suggestion to transfer control of troops to King James. There is no evidence that France is struggling to get military orders done, but then that is perhaps because there is no evidence such orders have been issued! The new player for France may not be aware that previous standing orders permitted French troops to defend themselves when challenged. Of course this may have changed in the 6 months since I left the game, but it would have been a very odd order to have rescinded during a time of open hostilities. If by accident rather than design RJC’s forces have broken the agreements with France then France is obliged to respond.

In Parliament, RJC has a slightly different set of problems based around one simple flaw: his core argument does not stand up to rational analysis. As demonstrated by the statement King James made, you cannot remove the subject of the treaties from their object. Despite protestations to the contrary, William has no legitimacy in England. And the more players (I will not describe them as nations, for some are not) who interfere in the conflict, the harder it will be for all to figure out who has the upper hand. They are trying to debate different issues whilst denying the legitimacy of the argument their counterparties are making. The result, understandably is paralysis and confusion among the voting. And when there is such confusion, gentlemen of honour look to their own consciences for guidance. With this, what we are starting to see is fascinating.

The Duke of Somerset, a senior Anglican noble, has decided he can no longer support RJC. I am reluctant to read too much into this because there is a history of hatred between RJC and Somerset. However, if this is a symptom of what is to come then clearly RJC is in trouble. If your army is 70% loyal, but you subdivide it into sections, some of which may be only 40% loyal, then you are exposing yourself to huge risks. The Williamites have never understood the strength of support which the Jacobites had in England. Certain parts of the country (mainly the old Catholic parts which includes the North and Yorkshire, the NW, SW and isolated pockets in the south) were very supportive and the martyrdom of King James has given them a banner to rally behind. Wales also had a loyal and traditional Catholic population at this time. I am a little surprised that King James has not enlisted the support of local Catholic martyrs from the 1500s. In York (which rather oddly has now changed back to William) we have St.Margaret Clitheroe, in Rochester Bishop Fisher. There are also several examples of popular risings in favour of the old religion such as the Pilgrimage of Grace. Although many major noble Catholic families turned recusant or were dispossessed of their lands, people forget that the southern squires remained solidly Catholic albeit unwilling to go against the major Lords who held power in their counties. Quite how much of this will be brought out in the game remains to be seen. The point I am making is that the religious map of England at this time is full of surprises which astute players could make use of.

It is also significant that in Scotland the Highland Clans have mobilised. It is unclear who they are supporting, but historically they were loyal to King James. It appears as though the Presbyterians who are in power in Scotland will be challenged by the Clans who historically wiped the floor with them! Ireland is still loyal to King James and it appears as though the people of Ireland are somewhat unforgiving of Spain’s attitude, blaming Spain for not recognising King James earlier and rallying to the cause.

Meanwhile a few Lincolnshire puritans have taken to the streets. I do not consider this particularly serious – Protestants are always protesting about something, hence the label! King James has declared religious toleration for all, so presumably that includes puritans; if they don’t like it then the historical course was to resettle in the Americas.


Parallels between England and Austria
There is one further observation I feel obliged to make. Leopold has made the quite outrageous claim in the Herald that he is no longer fighting France because of England, but because of France’s declaration of war on Austria just before I left. This claim has been treated with the contempt it deserves by his own nobles and by the Pope.

France’s statement detailed the justification France had to declare war on Austria, namely that in addition to breaking his peace treaty with France, Leopold has broken several clauses of the Treaty of Westphalia. Austria immediately rejected French claims that she was in breach of the Treaty of Westphalia, so she cannot have it both ways: either France’s claims were true and Austria is in breach of the treaties, or they are unfounded. For Leopold to suggest a 3rd option seems to be logically impossible without in some way admitting guilt. This is certainly the view of the Pope and the majority of Austrian nobles. Just as RJC has found himself in an indefensible position through his own actions, so Leopold has by his own desperation.

During the time she was claiming to be at war over England, Austria claimed she wanted nothing for herself or her allies, yet now demands territory and cash worth many millions of pounds. On what grounds? It is simple extortion. To grab lands she has no claim to and expect France to buy some of them back is to make a mockery of historical norms and behaviours of the time and expected in the game. Austria should be paying France damages for breaking her treaties, not demanding payment from France to allow her to continue breaking those treaties! The victims do not pay criminals to continue to commit crimes against them!

Meanwhile once again we have seen that despite claiming to want peace, Austria makes war on France by taking towns to destroy their infrastructure and damage France's economy. If the new player for France considered that much of the spite generated by this campaign was personal between Leopold and me, then he has surely been made to see that it was not. Instead we have a clear pattern: Austria will continue to act in an aggressive manner against all nations, to plunder and pillage at will. Leopold’s word means nothing. The only justification for continuing to attack whilst pretending to ‘negotiate’ is to seek to extract even more humiliating terms from France. Leopold should be paying France damages as the wronged party, instead of demanding territory and cash worth many millions of pounds, and this remains the case however outlandishly he dresses up his claims.

Leopold started the war dishonourably and he has continued to fight it by making war on civilians. He has been condemned by the Church, his own nobles and many neutral or non-aligned nations. None of this seems to make a blind bit of difference to him. He is establishing a reputation, but not one which will do him any credit if he seeks a long term future in the game.

It is instructive that we have seen RJC struggling in the game after a string of dastardly, dishonourable acts. It may take longer for Leopold’s actions to catch up with him, but they surely will. Perhaps we may see the HRE itself collapse in a state of civil war as the component nations find they cannot support an ‘emperor’ who claims to act in their name? The HRE was always no more than a lose confederation so the ties which bind it together should be easy to break. Bribing some nations to retain their loyalty can only achieve so much.

The rules (confirmed by the Discourse on Treaty Rules topic) state quite clearly that “where a country breaks a treaty there is steady downward pressure on its honour until the matter is resolved. This inevitably means that the nation in question will collapse in rebellion and other internal pressures eventually if the matter is ignored. That is a strong reason to comply with treaty obligations, or if you cannot to make a comparable offer to solve the problem.” It is “simply not worthwhile deliberately breaking treaties as those who do so will end up risking losing everything” And if that isn’t enough, it is confirmed that the effect is most sharply seen by reference to “what is deemed morally right in the eyes of your own aristocracy and/or contemporaries.”

I can only assume that the new player for France is taking the GM at his word and relying very heavily on this rule. If so then Austria has a choice: continue to occupy parts of France and ultimately see your support collapse, or accept your guilt and the judgement of the church, withdraw and pay damages to France which are acceptable to the new player.

Of course, if the player for France has judged incorrectly and it transpires that the GM cannot be trusted to implement the rules he has designed then the game as a whole becomes a farce. All players ultimately have to trust the GM. Consequently I suggest it is more likely France has judged correctly and he is prepared to accept more short term damage to France in favour of longer term humiliation of Leopold. A brave and high risk strategy which would not necessarily have appealed to me, but I salute him for giving it a try. Personally I would prefer to see Austria defeated on the battlefield and directly humiliated rather than France sitting back and expecting the GM to do all the work, even if the result is ultimately the same. In the words of Psalm 111: The good man conducts his affairs with honour, his sons will be powerful on earth; the children of the upright are blessed.

With England peacefully under the rule of King James and Leopold consigned to hell, we will then see a much simpler game with the only war in western Europe being between UDP and France, which will be very interesting to comment on.

I imagine you are

I am not against negotiation, but there has to be some prospect of agreement between the parties to allow negotiation.

In the case of King James vs RJC, it would appear that only one of you can rule England. So Deacon, unless you are prepared to forgive RJC for murdering your father, it would be a waste of time negotiating with him. You would be rightly criticised by your own followers if you continued to send peace envoys to RJC only to find they were butchered by him? I suggest that the only prospect of an agreement between you and RJC would be if RJC admitted his guilt, offered to pay compensation and threw himself on your mercy. At that point it would be down to you, as the injured party, to determine how generous you would be towards him. Until he does that, there is nothing to negotiate between you. And of course, if he does surrender to you, then presumably it will be because he is no longer in the game and you take your rightful place as King by default.

With Austria vs France we have a similar situation in principle: France is wronged, yet far from admitting guilt, Austria compounds the offense by continuing to attack. It is not in Austria's gift to extract a penalty from France, so that Austria can then continue to go on offending. So until Austria admits her guilt and offers reparations to France it would appear there is nothing to negotiate about. And under such circumstances the rules are very clear: Leopold will (not might, but will) find his ability to wage a dishonourable war affected, Austria will therefore collapse in rebellion due to internal pressures. If you read the guidance again, carefully, the consequences are not merely felt in terms of an honour loss. Leopold can afford an honour loss, but he can't afford a breakup of the HRE. The honour loss is likely to occur at the same time, but internal rebellion is also a consequence of breaking treaties. How this plays out is down to the GM, but it seems quite clear that in a lose confederation of states already split by religion, it would require the protection of a higher honour score to hold such a confederation together than it would for a single nation state like France. So Leopold may not have as much leeway as he thinks. This makes sense in the context of history: lesser Lords owed allegiance to greater Lords, but that allegiance was conditional on them acting as Lords, being honourable and trustworthy, otherwise the whole structure of society was threatened, and rebellion ultimately happened. An incompetent Lord could survive for a long time supported by competent underlings, but a dishonourable Lord was quickly replaced by a more honourable underling who could command the respect of his peers by his actions. The French people rioted not because I was untrustworthy, but because they thought I was behaving dishonourably through seeking a negotiated peace with the enemy rather than allowing the French army to do its job and avenge their honour. It may not be the modern way of thinking, as we seem to prefer appeasement and compromise, but it is the historical way of thinking in 1700.

A key moment was seen when you (I assume it was you) were able to persuade the Pope to declare Saint King James a Martyr. The Pope then issued a powerful broadside against all Catholics who oppose your just and honourable cause. It would be rather odd if this was a one-off rather than a warning with more to come if the aggressor (Leopold) did not stop his attacks on His Most Christian Majesty. No Catholic nation can put itself in opposition to the Catholic church without there being serious consequences for internal stability. As France I suffered low honour over an extended period for a variety of factors, including not fighting back strongly against the invader, but what saved me was that I had moral right on my side. Austria does not have that defense. So for Austria to avoid the consequences of her actions (i.e. internal rebellion), then she must make restitution. That is what the phrase 'comparable offer to solve the problem' means in the context of treaty breaches. The terms issued by Spain and Austria are not offers to solve the problem, but to compound the offense. Until that changes, it is clear that the only reason for her to continue to attack is if she is deliberately seeking to cause economic damage to France and take the new player for a fool. Although it is always nice to occupy the moral high ground to gain diplomatic respect, events have secured to France that moral high ground. To indulge Austria's phoney diplomacy simply to retain diplomatic advantage requires the prospect of a diplomatic solution. Until Austria repents and offers reparation such a solution looks elusive.

Of course I can only comment as an outsider based on what I read in the newspaper. Players have different styles and I respect that. Jason's diplomatic genius may have already won the day and he may be conducting secret negotiations to find Leopold a way to make a face-saving u-turn. Consequently there is the risk I may be doing Leopold a dis-service in which case I will be only too happy to apologise to him once he surrenders his army, leaves France, calls off his pirates and agrees to transfer substantial assets to France in compensation for the damage he has caused.

It will be very interesting and I for one will look forward to reading them. It is not the situation you find yourself in, but the situation you create that makes the difference. When you took over France you were generous in your praise over what you had inherited and I thank you for that. You have already made far more diplomatic progress than I could have done and from your earlier comments you appear to be planning some very interesting surprises over the next few turns to keep us all entertained.