Game 10

Stuart Bailey wrote:here is a round up of events from the viewpoint of “Honest Stu van Bailie”

Thanks Stuart – by far the best summary you have written, though on a personal level I do miss the Rozwi turn writeups – there’s always something new out of Africa!

Kerensky wrote:Fear not, no risk of me letting the side down

Glad to hear it!

Rozwi_Game10 wrote:This is the longest piece I've ever written and I'm not good at writing such pieces, so forgive me, please, should I have failed to have gotten across what I was trying to.

Rozwi, I thought the post was both intelligent and thoughtful, illustrating the dilemma many players have with religion in games. In game you have requested that no nation should attempt to convert the Rozwi, which I have respected. I may have lost a few honour points for that, but as I wrote on the Papal Powers thread, sending in thousands of Jesuits to try and undermine the social/religious stability of a peaceful active nation who has not taken a stance against Rome just to spoil their game is not the kind of thing I do. The Papacy does not go looking for trouble! It is slightly different when it is a Catholic nation in rebellion where it is my clear duty to protect my flock.

When it comes to lack of response to letters, though, your solutions are difficult for me to apply in game. The clergy are prohibited from fighting duels (as I believe are representatives to the Imperial Diet), so issuing challenges or claiming personal insults cannot apply. It is inherently dishonourable to attack the clergy or provoke them to violence. Neither would it be appropriate for the Papacy to engage in the kind of personal insults thrown about in some sections of the newspaper, especially if I agree with them. Diplomatic penalties can be applied, but risk reprisal which encourage rather than diminish the risks of war. The Papacy is uniquely vulnerable in that it is entirely reliant on others fighting to protect it. In a climate where everyone was looking for a war, it would be very easy to pick on a phrase in one of my statements and for Catholic nations to declare war on whoever they thought had insulted or threatened the Pope. They would probably get a huge honour boost, but if they were looking for a statement in support of their actions they may be disappointed unless it fits the criteria of the Just War Doctrine (yes the church does have a doctrine relating to war, which differs somewhat from the list of casus belli in the rulebooks!) At the moment the consensus seems to be that many nations are trying to avoid war not start one, and are using diplomatic pressure to achieve that aim. They may or may not succeed – difficult to know one way or the other if letters are not replied to. As I have posted before, it doesn’t make much difference to me personally since I have made my ruling, but it does make a great deal of difference to those who could end up being bounced into a war they have tried to avoid.

In a sense the situation is the opposite to that you describe in your opening paragraph: you did not want to declare war on Portuguese Colonies for fear that a Catholic coalition would attack you. I do not particularly want to have war declared on me so a Catholic coalition will attack that nation in response. The reason is not because I fear for the future of the Papal States – quite the opposite! The original cause of any war will be forgotten within the first few months of any fighting. The last thing players will be fighting over is the Papal States – they will all be looking to annex various colonies or territories for their own purposes, motivations will change, otherwise peaceful positions may be drawn in and no doubt several players will leave the game. The chaos will take many years to resolve and at each twist and turn players will appeal for Papal support to keep their honour up. The final result will dramatically change the balance of power in Europe, except in respect of the Papacy, which of course will continue to survive and prosper as is its nature. I happen to think it would all become rather boring, but no doubt others will disagree.

The forum is regularly, and correctly in my opinion, used to inform players that someone has missed a turn or that replies to letters may be delayed. That is common sense – lack of a reply may lead some to conclude the position has become inactive. It is also courteous and usually receives an understanding acceptance or sympathy from other players. But when the exception becomes the norm for an individual player who then boasts that it is deliberate, I see no reason why that behaviour should be accepted or that they should be treated with sympathy, and following your request do not intend to enter into a discussion about it.

.

Thank you all for your kind words regarding my visit to hospital, well on the road to recovery now.

On relegious matters I am willing to admit it is not a strong point of my knowledge, plus being brought up in a CoE household, I am like it or not biased in that direction.
Luckily it seems that UDP apprach is you can worship as you want & who you want so long as you do the job you have been given to do. Interestingly after the UDP rose up against Spain on matters of relegion, its end agreement was based on geographical conditions rathre than relegious splits, the Northern Provinces were more easily defendable.
Looking acrosss history there could also be the faint impression that relegion is used as an excuse to further the political aims of countries, doing things in the name of God is always a passionate war cry.

Relegion I suppose has always been a background noise in LGDR, if nothing else it is seen as a free ticket to the honour score top ten, maybe in G10 it is moving more or the fore front. As an innocent bystander of lifes great highway it is certainly going to be interesting to see who ends up singing the loudest melodies.

Papa Clement, thank you for your reply and explanation. I have to admit to going away after I wrote what I did and trying to think from the Papal viewpoint on the issue of diplomacy, resulting in thoughts along what you have explained restrict your position - memories of the recent BBC/French TV program Versailles came to mind with Rome sending a (Legate?) to Versailles to try and encourage King Louis XIV back into line, which basically didn't work if I remember correctly. I managed to think of a few ways to appease Rome should I have been playing a Catholic character, but found myself wanting when it came to thinking up a definite solution when working within the restrictions of the Papal position. You're definitely playing an interesting and unique position in the game.

I do, actually, agree with near-enough everything you've written on the Forum concerning TGOK and Game 10 in particular, but that is by the by (and obviously won't have an impact on my playing of Rozwi and dealings with the Papal States in case anyone begins to worry). And I look forward to Rozwi's ambassador making landfall in Europe when his period of training and travel is through.

While Religion was very important to people in our period with the exception of wars with the Ottomans it is actually hard to find a European war in the second half of the C17 and then in the C18 were it played a major part. And in the Ottoman Wars, Catholic Austria and Venice were perfectly happy to ally with Orthodox Russia, use Protestant Troops and seek alliances and co-operation with Islamic Persia. While the Ottomans used many Christian troops and allied with Protestant rebels and Cossacks.

In the famous 1683 campaign for instance much of the damage done to Austria was done by Hungarian Hussars (probably Christians of various types) while the forces which broke the siege included German Protestant Princes and their troops plus a Polish Army under a Papal Banner which included Muslim troops.

The War which is normally viewed as the last religious war in Europe is the thirty years war (1618 - 1648 or 1659 if you are Spanish or French). But from 1629 various Protestant Princes were fighting with the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor while the "Protestant" side were kept going my money and later full scale Military intervention by French Government's lead by first Cardinal Richelieu and then Cardinal Mazarin.

After forming an alliance with Protestant Sweden and the Protestant German Princes in the 1630's/1640's France went on to ally with Oliver Cromwell against Catholic Spain in the 1650's. Ally with Protestant UDP to fight Protestant England and then the other way round in the 1660's and 1670's. Before backing Protestant Hungarian Rebels with money, diplomatic support and even volunteer Officiers in the WSS period. Apart from wars against Protestant strongholds at home such as the siege of La Rochelle in 1627 the only French campaign which looks even a bit religious was the attempt to relieve the Ottoman Siege of the Venetian Port of Candia on Crete in 1669.

The UDP allied with France against Protestant England in the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War, also allied with France against its historic Spanish Catholic foe before it decided Louis XIV was growing too strong and allied with first Spain and then Catholic Austria to fight the French in the nine years war which has just ended when the Glori du Roi starts.

Catholic Austria which prided itself on being a Ultra Catholic State at different times in the C17/C18 allied with Protestant Saxony, Protestant Prussia, The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which prided itself on its religious freedom, Protestant Sweden, Protestant UDP, Protestant England, Othodox Russia and bullied the Papal States while fighting wars with Catholic Spain, France, Bavaria and Savoy.

If players in game want to have a religious moment like Louis XIV in 1669 (I think he was ill and wanted to try out his new and expensive Navy) they are perfectly free to do so but some how I am not sure Protestant Denmark dashing to save Protestant Sweden if/when its attacked by the non Protestant Russians or Poles as being that historic.

I very much doubt if Catholic Players would have dashed to save their fellow Catholics in East Africa from nasty pagans. East Europe and a Ottoman Army marching up the Danube on Vienna might be a different case but you suspect that a feeling of "Who's next? may play a part" alongside thoughts like "I will be a Hero" and "I dont want to die of Malaria"

Stuart Bailey wrote:While Religion was very important to people in our period with the exception of wars with the Ottomans it is actually hard to find a European war in the second half of the C17 and then in the C18 were it played a major part. The War which is normally viewed as the last religious war in Europe is the thirty years war (1618 - 1648 or 1659 if you are Spanish or French).

This is an interesting observation. I would add that the English Civil War(s) and Cromwell's Interregnum were very much religious-based, as were the conflicts in England/Ireland in the 1680s/90s, but perhaps England was just the odd one out? Perhaps the reason the second half of the 17th century was relatively quiet in terms of overtly religious wars was that they tended to be particularly vicious. In the 1640s, the HRE, France and England were all being ripped apart by religious conflict, and not even the strongest nations wanted to risk disintegrating in another long war. Nobody wanted to return to the divisions of the 30 Years War and the Treaty of Westphalia made certain provisions to try and remove religion as a cause of future wars.

I don't think that means religion disappeared as a factor for those fighting, though. The Huguenots who were kicked out of France were unlikely to fight for Louis as mercenaries; the Catholic Scots and Irish who fled their homes after William's persecutions were more likely to fight for France or Spain.

Stuart no doubt knows more about this than I do, but there were few years in the second half of the 17th century where France was not at war, so inevitably France was the enemy to be resisted and nations who were in the immediate firing line would band together for their own survival, irrespective of religion. As Emperor, Austria was surely entitled to expect the loyalty of non-Catholic states to contain French expansion?

Stuart Bailey wrote:Somehow I am not sure Protestant Denmark dashing to save Protestant Sweden if/when its attacked by the non Protestant Russians or Poles as being that historic.

Surely it would not be necessary for them to do so since it is the duty of the Emperor to defend the Empire, and any act of war by one member upon another would break the Imperial Peace?

Stuart Bailey wrote:I doubt if Catholic Players would have dashed to save their fellow Catholics in East Africa from nasty pagans. East Europe and a Ottoman Army marching up the Danube on Vienna might be a different case but you suspect that a feeling of "Who's next?" may play a part alongside thoughts like "I will be a Hero" and "I don't want to die of Malaria".

I suspect Stuart may be correct that attacks on colonies were probably treated differently than those within Europe. Colonies were not always founded by deliberate design of nations, but unofficially by religious dissidents, stranded sailors, even criminals. It sometimes took years before they would be adopted by a particular nation, and then somewhat begrudgingly. Some Caribbean colonies changed hands every few years or became virtually independent through neglect. I'm sure if a colony was established as a penal colony and contained a handful of guards under an governor who had been sent there in exile, the ruling power may be delighted to save the cost of upkeep if it was attacked.

Attacks by natives could well have been seen as one of the natural hazards colonial powers had to contend with - they founded the colony and if they couldn't hold it, it was their problem. Rival colonial powers may well have celebrated when they got into trouble - a trading competitor driven out so they can form a monopoly. In Spanish and Portuguese colonies one of the primary reasons for colonization was to convert the natives, so perhaps in those cases it would be more likely to provoke a response. It may also depend on what the natives did to the captured colony. If they simply burnt it to the ground and slaughtered the inhabitants then would a ruler bother trying to re-establish that colony or find somewhere else to settle? If they captured the colony and preserved its economic value then perhaps it is more likely that the colonial power would try to free its people and retake it, quite possibly using the excuse of protecting co-religionists.


.

My earlier post which I should have made more specific was on Religion playing a much smaller role in International Alliances/Wars from about the 1630's onwards with none of the major international wars being a simple Catholic V Protestant fight. But as players have pointed out religion continued to play a large role in internal conflicts and not only on the fringes of Europe like with the "Killing Time" in Scotland.

Which could result in such odd results as his most Christian Majesty and his Cardinal Ministers allying with Cromwell & the Dutch & pouring in gold and troops to help Sweden and the Protestant Union fight the Catholic League while at the same time they were attacking the French Protestants at home.

Meanwhile the Emperor was sending in the Jesuits to "educate" their children and being generally nasty to Protestants in Hungary and elsewhere in his territory. While at the same time being in alliance with the Protestant Dutch, English, Prussia etc for the Nine Years War and the War of the Spanish succession.

My theory on why this was is that almost all Governments in our period be they Catholic in France, Austria or Spain, Anglican in England or Calvinist in Prussia no longer set their foreign policy objectives on grounds of religion as the number one concern. So Spain was no longer driven by faith to send a Armada to England and drag it back to the true faith, the Protestant Princes of the Holy Roman Empire no longer burned to convert the whole Empire etc. This is not to say that fear of "Popery" or a wish to help their co-religionest's did not still exist but it was not the be all and end all of foeeign Policy.

Thus in 1707 the Emperors Protestant allies talked the King of Sweden out of an intervention to support Protestants in Silesia (and got said Protestants some concessions from the Emperor) to the great disappointment of the French. While the Spanish and French intervention in Scotland and Ireland to help the Catholic Jacobites always seem's to be less linked to burning religious objectives and more to do with how bad their relations were with the English Government.

HOWEVER I do think that almost all Governments also viewed Religious minorities (majorities in some places like Moghul India, Ireland and Scotland) as being of suspect loyalty and treated them very badly in an effort to achieve religious uniformity. Which tended to turn such minorities into exactly what the Governments feared.

Thus French, Spanish and even Russian armies gained thousands of Irish & Scots recruits. While the armies and economies of Louis XIV foes gained hugely from the flight of French Protestants.

While fear of a Protestant State within a State in France and of the Scots Clans and Kirk is perhaps understandable one wonders if many
Governments did not make an error in treating disenteers with such brutality. Certainly more enlightened earlier Great Moguls did suffer the revolts which extreme Muslim rule triggered in India while the generally tolerated Catholics in the UDP showed no particular ambition to betray swap the Republic for a non Dutch Catholic Monarchy.

Stuart Bailey wrote:My theory on why this was is that almost all Governments in our period be they Catholic in France, Austria or Spain, Anglican in England or Calvinist in Prussia no longer set their foreign policy objectives on grounds of religion as the number one concern. So Spain was no longer driven by faith to send a Armada to England and drag it back to the true faith, the Protestant Princes of the Holy Roman Empire no longer burned to convert the whole Empire etc. This is not to say that fear of "Popery" or a wish to help their co-religionist's did not still exist but it was not the be all and end all of foreign Policy.

While fear of a Protestant State within a State in France and of the Scots Clans and Kirk is perhaps understandable one wonders if many Governments did not make an error in treating dissenters with such brutality. Certainly more enlightened earlier Great Moguls did suffer the revolts which extreme Muslim rule triggered in India while the generally tolerated Catholics in the UDP showed no particular ambition to betray swap the Republic for a non Dutch Catholic Monarchy.

I can accept that from 1648 wars were primarily concerned with nation building, but a consequence of that nation building was to a large extent the desire for a single religion to support that nation and bind it together. Thus Louis’ revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the Dragonnades, Austria “being generally nasty to protestants in Hungary”, and other examples Stuart quotes. As Stuart points out, religious minorities were often viewed with suspicion and restrictions placed upon them which encouraged emigration. But this applied more strongly in protestant lands than Catholic ones since it was protestant countries which feared Catholic insurgency. In UDP the constitutions of Holland and Zeeland mandated Calvinism despite the Union of Utrecht stating that religion was a matter of personal choice and nobody should be prosecuted for religious reasons. Catholics were unable to hold public office throughout UDP, in the same way that in England officeholders had to conform to the Church of England. In reality all provinces in UDP forbade Catholic services, even in individual homes, and those Catholics caught at Mass could be thrown out of their cities, effectively losing their livelihood as well as their property. Where Catholicism did survive in UDP it was in small villages.

So although I can agree that post-1648, wars fought for overtly religious reasons were less prevalent, religious unity remained an inseparable consequence of those wars and was highly likely to have been a factor motivating rulers to declare war in the first place.

I can't immediately recall any European nation changing its religion from 1648-1700, so it is quite possible that should it be tried, the response would follow historic lines and there would be a war of religion break out again.

J Flower wrote:

There isn't a "Dowager" Queen in residence in London,  James wife it is beleived to be  on holiday somewhere abroad with her husband, hard to keep track of where they are as they seem to move around a bit.

James II Queen Mary is an Italian and as far as I am aware not related to the King of Portugal.

I was refering to Charles II Queen Catherine of Braganza who not only brought Charles a large large dowry which included Bombay but also introduced and made Tea Drinking fashionable in England. She is thus partly responsible for the rise of the HEIC, the Raj, Hong Kong, the Boston Tea, as well as Tea, Curry and Port being staples of the modern English diet.

Historically in 1700 Catherine of Braganza is back home in Lisbon in 1700 and later became Regent of Portugal due to her brother being ill but as the Widow of Charles II her title is "Her Majesty The Queen Dowager of England, Scotland & Ireland" and continued to back the Anglo-Portuguese alliance.

I feel that for her services to tea drinking if nothing else she should be better known and celebrated even if she was Catholic and Portugese. In G10 were Mary Stuart is oddly still Queen of England and Prince George is Marys son rather than he sister's son I make Catherine of Braganza the Aunt of the current Queen and Great Aunt to the one year old Prince of Wales.

[quote="Papa Clement"]

Stuart Bailey wrote:

I can't immediately recall any European nation changing its religion from 1648-1700, so it is quite possible that should it be tried, the response would follow historic lines and there would be a war of religion break out again.

Sort of depends what you mean by changing its religion - If you are talking about clear cut and total religious changes imposed by the Government like Henry VIII reformation or the Conversion of a whole Country like Saxony under the influence of Martin Luther then these are more difficult to spot with possible exception of England which under went a radical religious change and then restored its Monarchy and Bishops and changed it all back again.

However many counties either made or attempted to make very major changes in earlier religious settlements (often with the object of tidying up what they viewed as messy left over situation) such as:

- France did away with the formerly tolerated Protestant minority.

- Hapsburg lands - formerly Protestant majority areas in Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia and esp in parts of Hungary reconquered from the Ottomans were restored to Catholic Control and converted by mix of force and missionary work.

- Polish Commonwealth, Poland slowly went from from being very, very mixed religious with majority of the Nobility being Protestant in 1569 to the banning of non Catholic's from entry to the szlachta in 1673. While Lithuania which had also been very mixed split between Catholic Nobility and Orthodox lower classes.

- The British Kings also attempted various Religious Changes such as trying to impose Bishops in Scotland and even returning the Church of England to unity with Roman.

Vast majority of these changes lead to major problems and conflicts or at least contributed towards them - such as the Bishops War in Scotland, the English Civil War and the Hungarian Revolt. But it is hard to say what is the relative importance of factors in a revolt/civil conflict so was the Hungarian Revolt inspired more by the Hapsburg threat to impose the counter-reformation? Harsh tax gathering from a war damaged country to pay for the Turkish War and the next one against the French or the fact that the Emperor was not respecting the rights of the Hungarian Nobles including their right not to pay tax?

Likewise were British conflicts caused by fear that the King wanted to restore Popery? Raise tax's like Ship Money? Or ignore the rights of Parliament when trying to levy taxes and make religious changes? Oddly with the British a series of Wars started by Scots Calvinists fighting against the King wanting to install Bishops in Scotland ends with the same Scots marching south to support the Kings Son's claim to the throne after he has signed the Holy League and Covenant and promised to do away with Bishops in England. Though it is likely that Charles II may have had his fingers crossed behind his back when he made this promise.

Meanwhile the heroic opponents of Charles I taxation went on to levy levels of tax that dwarfed his demands and spent it on exactly the same things as Charles I said he needed the tax for ie crushing Irish revolts and building ships. Which leads one to think that a major cause of the English Civil War was that people just do not trust Stuarts ( ).

I certainly agree with a lot of wars were caused by fear ........of Hapsburg intentions, Stuart intentions or the intentions of Louis XIV.

But too be fair I think a lot of these fears were not groundless.........the Hapsburgs after their victories over the Ottomans loudly proclaimed their ambitions to re-take lands they had lost to the French........While Louis XIV armies had in the dacades prior to 1700 had ravaged the UDP, Flanders, Western Germany and driven hundreds of thousands of their fellow countrymen into exile many with horrific tales of rape, torture, flogging and being sent to the galleys.

-

Could put the argument forward that The Reformation was a way for Imperial nobles to expand their territories at the expense of the bishops.

Henry VIII in England needed a way to get his divorce through because he needed an heir to secure the throne, plus the added bonus of getting some extra income from Church property & lands.

Which could lead to the conclusion that religion is used as an excuse to cover up for political moves.

Religion is ok till people get involved then it gets complicated.

If I recall, our GM wrote a piece on religion and wars a very long time ago, it could have been as long ago as the 1990's. I don't have it anymore but somebody might have it in their records.
In regard to an earlier point in this thread. If you are an African power with a shortage of money and a surplus of troops; at this time a historical solution could be to go slave raiding which would deal with both pressures. However, it depends on how you want to play the game in regard to modern morality versus mercantile economics.

Basileus wrote:If I recall, our GM wrote a piece on religion and wars a very long time ago, it could have been as long ago as the 1990's. I don't have it anymore but somebody might have it in their records.
In regard to an earlier point in this thread. If you are an African power with a shortage of money and a surplus of troops; at this time a historical solution could be to go slave raiding which would deal with both pressures. However, it depends on how you want to play the game in regard to modern morality versus mercantile economics.

I think you may be thinking about p36 Religion & Ethics in my probably rather dated version of the rule book.

Ref how East African, Persian and Ottoman players should view slavery its probably best not to view it via the prisim of the transatlantic slave trade but view slaves in the ancient meaning of "spear spared" and just view them as POWs/the lowest rank of commoners. They are below you but if you are the King or Sultan their is not much difference between someone 8 or 9 ranks below you.

While I would not wish to play down the brutal effect of Ottoman & Tartar Slave raids into Russia, the Commonwealth and other parts of East Europe. If you were a Russian Serf (90% of population) with basically zero chance of getting out of Serfdom (Which would be Slavery under modern rules) if you got captured in a slave raid and sold in one of the Muslim Empires which used slaves in their military and government your chances of social improvement was actually improved.

The real problem positions would seem to be be West African positions like the Asante........do you actually raid to take Slaves for sale to the middle passage? Or do you only sale to Slave Traders as a just punishment for "revolting" against your rule? In the same way as the Europeans used transportation to as a punishment.

With apologies to anybody I'm leaving in the lurch, I've decided to drop game 10. Best of luck to everyone.

Deacon wrote:
With apologies to anybody I'm leaving in the lurch, I've decided to drop game 10. Best of luck to everyone.

Shame you are going, Deacon. Thanks for your tips on playing the Papacy.

Stuart Bailey wrote:I think you may be thinking about p36 Religion & Ethics in my probably rather dated version of the rule book.

There is a revised version of this in The Gentleman's Handbook (2001), which may or may not still be current.  It reads as follows:

Religion and Ethics

Most people were on the face of it very wary of getting involved in Wars of Religion following the 30 Years War which devastated much of Germany.  This wariness did not prevent conflict and religion still played a vital role in how people made decisions.  Indeed, there is barely a letter written by an officer or ruler which has survived to the present day which does not in passing mention Providence, the Almighty or God in some respect.  King Charles XII of Sweden accepted all that happened to him as his destiny, despite being a devout Lutheran (who were evangelical - predestination being a Calvinist theme).  This was a common view across the globe.  Tsar Peter, an Orthodox Christian, looked on his early defeats as lessons from God, perhaps teaching humility and perseverance, and then said he saw the Almighty's purpose at last following his crushing victory at Poltava.

The Sunni Muslims of the Ottoman Empire put everything down to the Will of God, and their whole system of Government was subject to the Shariat, or Holy Law.

Taking diplomatic and even military action to protect oppressed minorities of your faith in other rulers lands was a common act.  Again, Charles XII threatened to fight the Hapsburg Austrians to free the Protestants of Silesia from Catholic domination, only the intervention of the Duke of Marlborough dissuading him, plus reassurances from the Holy Roman Emperor.  Indeed the whole idea of the Empire in Germany was to promote talks between the various princes rather than having them resort to the sword, this being a positive outcome of the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the 30 Years War.  In the Languedoc region of Southern France, the Protestant population fought a long and bitter guerrilla campaign against a Royal Army for years, while their co-religionists (and other Cathlics!) fought the Sund King in Flanders, Spain and Italy.  Tsar Peter invaded Ottoman territories of the Hopsdarates (Moldavia and Wallachia) to liberate their Orthodox population, but in the event only received limited public support and was defeated at the river Pruth.  Shi'a and Sunni Muslims fought each other, a result of the rivalry between Shi'a Persia and the Ottoman Sunni's over ownership of the Caucasus.

On the positive side, the prominence of religion gave men of the time a different outlook on the acts of men.  High standards were expected in all but the most bitter conflicts.  Officers would be permitted to go home on parole and would not fight until released to do so by their parole being lifted by agreement.  They could even stay with their unit in the field but avoided doing any duties so as to conform with terms of parole!  Why?  Due to a code of Honour, and because the Divine Presence would know if you did wrong.  those who did no doubt repented at length as old age approached (see the Memoirs of Captain Peter Drake, for example).  Whole armies could be granted Honours of War to avoid bloodshed, the word of the general being good enough to secure this.  When the Duke of Marlborough had numerous villages in Bavaria torched to get the Electoral Prince of that land to march and give battle, the Duke was loudly condemned at home and elsewhere.  In France mothers warned their children that 'Marlbrouk' would come and get them if they don't behave (I've heard they still do, thinking 'Marlbrouk' is a beast of myth!)  Minorities could be protected from prosecution by the interests of their powerful co-religionists in other States.  The protestants in France were an obvious exception, but several attempts had been made to help them in earlier decades, but France proved too powerful to have her will bent towards tolerance by diplomatic means.  After all, the Gallican Church considered Protestants condemned to Eternal Damnation, so forcibly converting their children was in their eyes a saving grace, preventing them going the way of their parents after death.

There was no deliberate and massive genocide as seen in the 20th century at the hands of atheist regimes, thankfully, so perhaps despite the strife it was to some extent an Age of Reason.  Where butchery took place it was usually the result of an event such as storming a town, when men - having seen many of their friends killed in assaulting the defences - would go on an orgy of destruction. Still, this was well-known and the Honours of War system tried to provide a solution to prevent such inevitably brutality.

You should take into account religion therefore when playing the game, as praise from a religious archenemy can be damning indeed, perhaps even costing you Honour!

CONTROVERSIAL BIT: The dominance of religion in the real lives of most people started to end with the French Revolution, when the first act of modern genocide as a deliberate policy took place, the aptly named Terror, or attempted extermination of a whole class of people.  Revolutionary France was the first committed atheistic regime, followed this century by the Khmer Rouge of Killing Fields fame (million dead). Stalin's Soviet Union - which murdered millions of Ukrainians by deliberate blockade and starvation and Communist China & the so-called Cultural Revolution of murderous fame.  Fashionable ideology in Nazi Germany and before WW1 in that country considered Moral Right to be the same as Survival of the Fittest in terms of Natural Selection, so they would succeed in war, which was justifiable as an extension of politics and nothing more terrible.  Millions of dead Jews, gypsies, socialists and other 'deviants' was of course the result, arguably along with two world wars.  What do all these regimes have in common?  Unfettered by loss in belief of God they knowingly replaced Him with scientific theory or pure Darwinism with no spiritual dimension at all.  Communist regimes worked on the basis of Science as God, belief in scientific management of society.  The resulting butchery of whole civilisations is hard to credit.  The only act of similar devastation in earlier times had been the genocide of Native Americans, though this was accidental, via European diseases unknowingly passed on, rather than a deliberate ploy.  It is as if Man is designed to need God to survive socially.

I guess that settles it ... religion is an important aspect of the game, though as other rules have evolved since this was originally written, so the importance of religion may depend on the weight players give to it.  Perhaps since G10 has an active Pope, religion takes on a greater importance than in games where the Pope is inactive.

Certainly reading this again after such a long time does seem to suggest that messing with religion in France is going to cause far more problems than I had originally considered.

I don't happen to agree with Richard on this particular bit. History is replete with acts of great evil. Religion is no protection. It is often the excuse for such evil. I should think all of us know the word pogrom. That word is hardly modern.

Crusades, wars of the reformation? The mass slaughters of Ghengis Khan weren't moderated by his faith.

I'd argue that the only thing that has changed is that modern technology allows man's evil to scale up in ways it never could before.

It shall be interested to watch from the sidelines how this plays out in game 10 though!

I posted the reference to help those who couldn't find it, unedited so they could read it for themselves.

Religion does not exist to cure the defects of mankind, but it does enable mankind to recognise what those defects are and a setting in which to use the gifts God has given us in a positive way to further God's plan for us, individually and collectively.

Can't really comment on Ghengis Khan's religion, but I don't remember him being cited as a Catholic!

Technology can indeed be used to scale up evil, but also for good. Although this may change as AI becomes more prevalent, the choice at the moment rests with the users of that technology. What is curious is that the focus of technological development until very recently has been to remove the need for individuals to co-operate with others. Now the focus is more on collaboration/networks and big data, the pendulum seems to have shifted away from the individual towards communities. Technology is useful for analysing the what and possibly explaining how, but it doesn't give meaning to what it discovers or a definitive answer why. So however clever it seems, technology cannot replace religion. It simply throws up new questions to be answered by religion.

Genghis Khan was a believer in Tengrism. Shamanistic nature worship.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Basileus wrote:If I recall, our GM wrote a piece on religion and wars a very long time ago, it could have been as long ago as the 1990's. I don't have it anymore but somebody might have it in their records.
In regard to an earlier point in this thread. If you are an African power with a shortage of money and a surplus of troops; at this time a historical solution could be to go slave raiding which would deal with both pressures. However, it depends on how you want to play the game in regard to modern morality versus mercantile economics.

I think you may be thinking about p36 Religion & Ethics in my probably rather dated version of the rule book.

Ref how East African, Persian and Ottoman players should view slavery its probably best not to view it via the prisim of the transatlantic slave trade but view slaves in the ancient meaning of "spear spared" and just view them as POWs/the lowest rank of commoners.  They are below you but if you are the King or Sultan their is not much difference between someone 8 or 9 ranks below you.

While I would not wish to play down the brutal effect of Ottoman & Tartar Slave raids into Russia, the Commonwealth and other parts of East Europe.  If you were a Russian Serf (90% of population) with basically zero chance of getting out of Serfdom (Which would be Slavery under modern rules) if you got captured in a slave raid and sold in one of the Muslim Empires which used slaves in their military and government your chances of social improvement was actually improved.

The real problem positions would seem to be be West African positions like the Asante........do you actually raid to take Slaves for sale to the middle passage?  Or do you only sale to Slave Traders as a just punishment for "revolting" against your rule?  In the same way as the Europeans used transportation to as a punishment.  

Anyway I have plans to motivate my people to get this debt cleared on the list of ways to pay it off is to sell off border tracts of land or selling the Ark of the Covenant to the highest bidder (if its there in my country) but more of a if we don't get it under control pretty quickly it may end up being the case of more dramatic options being 'considered as a last option'. This should bring in the religious belief to bear as I have to do other things to get the debt controlled including some unpleasant choices.

What npc banking positions are there I no the Bank of England is there, any others? And do they have offices in Africa traveling will take time we have no ships so need to use land routes. I don't have a year to spare if the loan option fails I don't know what else to do a bond issue might require spending money not available now I might be forced out of the game over this mess. But have a couple months to work on it before the debt gets too high for me to try anymore.

Tkolter - further to previous answers I think bond issues usually require an exchange. Banks tend to charge interest, some of it at quite extortionate rates which only make the situation worse. Difficult to offer more detailed advice which is best kept inside letters.

I suggest you detail precisely what the problem is financially in a letter to the Papacy. I sent my turn back a while ago, but have a few ideas which could help you. You wouldn't be the first player to make a mess of things financially, and I'd hate for you to think you had to drop over money. I don't remember Abyssinia being played before, but it is a country with a great deal of potential. The more open you can be with me in your letter the more likely I will be able to suggest something to help you. The Papacy does not have a bank as such (although historically it did) mainly because I don't think banks fit well with running a religious position and they really have to be a certain size to justify the running costs). It does, however, have various charitable funds. The Papal States is always looking to diversify its income through trade which will reduce its reliance on tithes.

tkolter wrote:

Anyway I have plans to motivate my people to get this debt cleared on the list of ways to pay it off is to sell off border tracts of land or selling the Ark of the Covenant to the highest bidder (if its there in my country) but more of a if we don't get it under control pretty quickly it may end up being the case of more dramatic options being 'considered as a last option'. This should bring in the religious belief to bear as I have to do other things to get the debt controlled including some unpleasant choices.

What npc banking positions are there I no the Bank of England is there, any others? And do they have offices in Africa traveling will take time we have no ships so need to use land routes. I don't have a year to spare if the loan option fails I don't know what else to do a bond issue might require spending money not available now I might be forced out of the game over this mess. But have a couple months to work on it before the debt gets too high for me to try anymore.

As well as the Bank of England, other well known Banks in 1700 are the Swiss Bank of Zurich, The Dutch Banks which in game tend to get lumped into the Bank of Amsterdam and the Bank of St George in Genoa. Plus the Jewish Moneylenders.

In Game the Dutch and the Bank of England offer the lowest loans but you can normally only borrow from them with the agreement of the English or Dutch Governments. Interest rates also tend to be much lower if you can put up security for a loan.......something like income from a gold mine but the Ark may do.

As an alternative to a bank loan you could consider:

- A loan from a friendly government........may be the cheapest and best option if you do not mind owing someone a favour. If only G10 had some nasty Ottomans people would probably be really keen on throwing cash your way.

- Sale of Offices and/or commissions........this will cost you 10% of amount raised per year and is probably quicker to arrange than a European bank loan.

- As a last ditch option your Government can always declare itself bankrupt...........this will wipe out your debts but tends to do nasty things to Economic Health and Honour in the short run plus you will not be able to borrow again in the game. Some players used to borrow very large sums of money then declared themselves bankrupt but this tactic seems to have dropped out of fashion.

- A option related to going bankrupt is to devalue/debase your currency so if you owe a £1M you melt down 100,000 of gold coins in your treasury and re-mint them as 1,000,000 coins with only a tenth of the gold content and pay off the debt using the 1,000,000 coins.
Basicallly you inflate your debts away. Paying off debts with debased coin is "legal" and historic but tends to have a bad effect on your economic health. It also has a really bad effect on other users of the same type of money........in G2 The Ottoman Sultanate debased the Dinar without any notice and reduced value of the Rumelian, Syrian, Egyptian treasuries by 90% in a single month! Oddly enough somewhat later someone poured some of the de-based coin down the throat of the Vizier who ordered the debasement in very hot liquid form.

-

Thanks. This is going to be interesting.

Papa Clement wrote:Tkolter - further to previous answers I think bond issues usually require an exchange.  Banks tend to charge interest, some of it at quite extortionate rates which only make the situation worse.  Difficult to offer more detailed advice which is best kept inside letters.

I suggest you detail precisely what the problem is financially in a letter to the Papacy.  I sent my turn back a while ago, but have a few ideas which could help you.  You wouldn't be the first player to make a mess of things financially, and I'd hate for you to think you had to drop over money.  I don't remember Abyssinia being played before, but it is a country with a great deal of potential.  The more open you can be with me in your letter the more likely I will be able to suggest something to help you.  The Papacy does not have a bank as such (although historically it did) mainly because I don't think banks fit well with running a religious position and they really have to be a certain size to justify the running costs).  It does, however, have various charitable funds.  The Papal States is always looking to diversify its income through trade which will reduce its reliance on tithes.  

I have a plan or two it shouldn't have to go there at worse I may have to go to my plan of last resort.

Easiest option is probably just to ask your advisors( aka Agema) for a way forward, that way you will find out what is avaliable to help you, you may even find local money lenders in your country who are ready to bail you out.

Deacon wrote:
With apologies to anybody I'm leaving in the lurch, I've decided to drop game 10. Best of luck to everyone.

Sorry to see you go from the game, but glad you'll still be taking an interest. And hope you might be tempted back sometime, somewhere, somehow... Fare well.