Iron and Blood 2 - Game Thread

Africa or Middle East are the best places to start IMO.

The Battle of Chausey was a great naval victory for the French. It more than made up for the embarrassment at Trafalgar, and showed in plain sight just how insignificant the navies in former european colonies were. Admiral Ver Huelle, commanding from the first rate ship of the line, Lave, came up with an ingenious strategy to trap the American fleet, having allied frigates and blockade runners lure the american ships (mostly composed of bulky and slow, but not overly powerful, second rate ships of the line, and of overloaded and slower frigates) into the channel. This worked to perfection, as the coastal fort on Chausey, an island in the channel, was able to support the french ships of the line when their battle line split the american formation and wreaked havoc, with not a single french ship of the line being lost.

Victories on land followed, with the strategic abandonment of Picardy being taken hard by the Barbers, who took it as a tactic to destroy their land holdings there. Nonetheless, Barber officers in the defense of Paris from the western salient was a large part of the massacre at Tours, in which the French inflicted a 6 to 1 casualty rate with the help of tactical ambushes, well laid traps, and cavalry charges out of camouflaged positions. The eastern salient, against primarily Massena's men, managed to reach the fortifications at Orleans, but no further. A gritty battle followed as Massena made a mistake and withdrew his scouts and lookouts too soon. This allowed Orleans to be surrounded via cavalry and dragoons to the north. This wasn't enough though, as the western salient had the majority of men and equipment, and the catalonians soon found themselves divided and slain by simultaneous french counter attacks from the fortifications.

Both salients were driven back by cavalry, and only logistical problems stopped the drive into Catalonian lands. That, and Massena's force had been devastated by the encirclement, and Jean Barber fared not too much better in the west despite his remarkable casualty rate. Malnutrition was a large cause of death, and when the french marshals next gathered, they made clear reform of logistics was a must to get supplies to the front.

------

Massena's response to the Scandinavian Threat

The Scandinavians claim they are fine. They claim that they are peaceful, and they claim they have no ambitions of war. But the facts claim otherwise.

They relentlessly threaten, bribe, and blackmail finland into joining their kingdom. The refuse to listen to reason, and even Finland's blatant refusal to join won't deter them! They demand what is not rightfully theirs! They have made it sound so that the Finland affair is civilized-but it isn't. They are aggressively pursuing annihilation of any independent finnish state! France warns against any sign of taking steps to move major military forces into Finland by another power.

Yet that doesn't even touch on the topic of the hard line stance Scandinavia has chosen to take on religion! They treat excommunication as if it means nothing. They openly prosecute, forbid, and attack other religious sentiments inside their country that do not follow their own. They agreed to let jesuit missionaries into their country-look where that has gone! It has gone no where and they have not followed up on it like expected.

France is reluctant to take an active role in Scandinavian affairs. But when they openly insult our religion and show aggression towards rightfully independent states, we hesitate. Is it our place?

Surely it is the place of any independent nation of the world to aid another independent people. Surely a nation can be expected to stand up for their religion. Surely, a nation should not take an attack on their religion lying down.

So it is in an act of trust that France says we expect Scandinavia to lessen their stance on religion and see reason. We hope they do, we hope they see reason and allow religious freedom, TRUE religious freedom, but we cannot guarantee it. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that our relations with Scandinavia will remain amiable in the coming decades. We wish for friends, but sometimes the acts of others leave you no choice. We only hope that Scandinavia can stop this attack on religion and independent states.

------

France's take on the Middle East

A spokesman for the French House of Foreign Affairs has recently said that France condemns Lebanon for their actions, taking their grievances to violence. They have no claim to independence, and while religious freedom in Israel is something to be desired, we must also realize that the government is Jewish, and the PURPOSE of the state is the protection of Jews.

I would like to state that France is willing to offer to mediate a settlement of differences with Israel, the Lebanon people with grievances, and of the Caliphate and the Papal States as side observers for their respective religions. We are confident that if the grievances are laid on the table, discussed, and mulled over, we can reach some middle ground here. Surely, we do not want one war after another?

However, in order to do so, insults and accusations form all parties, including most notably the Papal States, must cease and such a mediation would be required to be closed to the public. France will not stand for a mud slinging match between respectable powers in the newspapers of the world.


------

I think Persia is the best suggestion space wise, plus it doesn't get enough love.

I certainly hope that the arrogant French admirals realize that were it not for the heroic deeds of the fleet of the Hedjazi fleet. Do they think they can do it again on their own? Would they rather fight like men, without allied support? Because we can certainly oblige, especially if France continues their hardline Zionist attitude.

hoplitejoe said:

I think Persia is the best suggestion space wise, plus it doesn't get enough love.

Click to expand...

Persia gets plenty of love from the Caliphate.

The Prime Minister of Scandinavia Responds to the France's misinformation

arya126 said:

The Scandinavians claim they are fine. They claim that they are peaceful, and they claim they have no ambitions of war. But the facts claim otherwise.

Click to expand...

Where have we increased military spending? - NONE
Where have we attacked another nation? - NONE
Where have we joined Military Alliances? - NONE

They relentlessly threaten, bribe, and blackmail finland into joining their kingdom. The refuse to listen to reason, and even Finland's blatant refusal to join won't deter them! They demand what is not rightfully theirs! They have made it sound so that the Finland affair is civilized-but it isn't. They are aggressively pursuing annihilation of any independent finnish state! France warns against any sign of taking steps to move major military forces into Finland by another power.

Click to expand...

We have changed our government, so our new leaders wished to pursue it again after a parliamentary committee recommended it, however it has always been our Union's ambition to unite Finland with the rest of Scandinavia. Whether it is geographically or not, we feel that it will greatly benefit from being part of a much larger Union. You need to check our political structure (from our embassy) Where it clearly gives our two other nations (Denmark and Norway) a significant say in the overall Scandinavian Union affairs. If Finland were to join it would be similarly treated. Sweden is still the pre-eminent nation, but that will change over time as more investment is directed to developing our other nations. It should be noted we have even made Norway our "National Focus". In future, Finland, if they join us, could be given this status.

Yet that doesn't even touch on the topic of the hard line stance Scandinavia has chosen to take on religion! They treat excommunication as if it means nothing. They openly prosecute, forbid, and attack other religious sentiments inside their country that do not follow their own. They agreed to let jesuit missionaries into their country-look where that has gone! It has gone no where and they have not followed up on it like expected.

Click to expand...

The Pope's decision to act publicly with his excommunication notice, before contacting us directly to discuss, was also insulting. Read this Public Notice by the Minister of Internal Affairs (from the Purist faction (now the Scandinavian Party) no less)

... all our people, even our King is allowed to believe in any manner they wish, and can continue to do so, without fear or persecution from the government.

Click to expand...

Shows that what you have stated is clearly wrong. Also, it is up to the leaders of other religious faiths to request access to our lands and not our position to invite them.

France is reluctant to take an active role in Scandinavian affairs. But when they openly insult our religion and show aggression towards rightfully independent states, we hesitate. Is it our place?

Click to expand...

Where have we, the Scandinavian Government, openly and in Public insulted your religion. If you are referring to the Incident at Copenhagen Gates, that was a local public order decision, made by the local mayor and local bishop.

Surely it is the place of any independent nation of the world to aid another independent people. Surely a nation can be expected to stand up for their religion. Surely, a nation should not take an attack on their religion lying down.

Click to expand...

We are Neutral, we abhor War, in all its forms as innocents will always be killed.

So it is in an act of trust that France says we expect Scandinavia to lessen their stance on religion and see reason. We hope they do, we hope they see reason and allow religious freedom, TRUE religious freedom, but we cannot guarantee it. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that our relations with Scandinavia will remain amiable in the coming decades. We wish for friends, but sometimes the acts of others leave you no choice. We only hope that Scandinavia can stop this attack on religion and independent states.

Click to expand...

We may one day open our borders to other faiths again, the current world's turmoil makes this a non-starter currently. Our people currently fear foreigners, because of this and other reasons. In addition, we are a new Nation, formed out of the turmoil of the last Wars, we would simply like to build up our nation in Peace.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lebanon Question

Scandinavia reserves it decision regarding Lebanon for the time being. We see this as a regional issue that nations in that region should resolve. We only hope that any resolution does not involve more bloodshed. We have seen too much and are still seeing too much of it. We hope peace will one day be restored to the world.

OOC: AT PROSPO

-

regions that could use a new player include. (in no order of precedence)

:Central Asia (Afghanistan, Turkestan, Khorasan [or similar])
:Caribbean (Cuba, Hispaniola, Belize-Jamaica)
:West Africa (Sokoto, Cameroon, Chad [or something in that region])
:South East Asia (Upper Burma, Lower Burma, Jao Phraya [or similar])
:Himalayas (Himalaya, Dehli, Kashmir)
:East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda)
:Mesoamerica (Zacatecas, Mexico, Veracruz
:Andes (Chile, Bolivia, Atacama)

Nation name: The Free and Democratic Peoples of Persia (Persia for short, Iran suggests extremist connotations)
Flag:
Color: Whatever you feel is most identifiable and fits best with the regional color scheme.
Capital: Khorasan, additional provinces include Tabriz and Fars
Description: Persia is mainly populated by Persians (58%), Azerbaijanis (12%), Kurds (10%), and other assorted groups such as Arabs and Turkmen. Census data does not record ethnicity so data on this is sparse and mainly based on projections from the last Qajar census.

After the Russo-Persian war of 1804-1814 and the loss of territory to the encroaching northerners, the Qajar dynasty was weakened. A group of communists in Tehran succeeded in murdering the heir apparent. Rival branches of the family initiated a conflict now known War of the Persian Succession. Eventually various noble houses, including the remainder of the royal family, were executed by a republican coup ordered by Azad Shirazi and the war was halted.

Monarchy was almost unanimously declared a failure, due to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Qajar Dynasty. A constitutional convention was called and the plans were drafted for a liberal democracy. First it was decided that the government would be split into four branches, each with checks on each other’s power. The three branches consist of the Judiciary, the Legislative, the State branch. The legislative branch consists of one house of 200 men(or women, both are eligible for office) each elected via the MMP system. The title of Shah has been continued in the new republic, now serving as the main title of the Chief Executive, also the Commander in Chief. Constituencies are determined by cultural homogeny, and are the main electoral unit in both State and Legislative elections. State elections are determined by MMP as well. Due to the lack of infrastructure in the country it was decided that an Electoral College be established in Tehran in order to keep the Electors well-informed. Each Elector would be voted in via MMP, and then they would elect the Shah via the Alternative Vote.

Universal Suffrage was proclaimed in the constitution, and the voting age set at 21. Citizenship is only awarded to naturalized persons and those who are born within the republic. Citizens are guaranteed the right to a trial, and a jury selected from their peers. All citizens are also guaranteed the right to a lawyer in criminal and civil cases. Warrants are required to search a Citizen’s home, and soldiers cannot be quartered in a citizen’s home or place of business during a time of peace (However the right is revoked during times of war). Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Speech is also guaranteed to all citizens. Persia is declared the successor state of the last Persian Empire.

The state remains overwhelmingly Shi'ite Muslim but, due to the recent turmoil and the introduction of Freedom of Religion, other religions have made headway in Iran (most noticeably Roman Catholicism). So far the Islamic clergy has not be overly disturbed by this shift in spirituality.
Factions:
Liberal Republicans-The original proponents of the constitution, decidedly fiscally and socially conservative. However religion has been excluded from the party's platform, to avoid alienated it's voter base. Symbolized by a lion.

Social Reformists-Supportive of a command economy and societal progress. Strongly in favor of education reform and the removal of all references to religion in goverment policies and the constitution. Symbolized by a Rooster.

Islamic Vanguard- A party dedicated to the protection of Islamic values in Iran and the preservation of its traditions. Very against religious freedom, and in favor of a mixed economy. Many of the hardliners of this party are in favor of Sharia Law. Many Mullahs are members of this party. Symbolized by a Star and Crescent striped with red, green, and white.

OOC: this work for everyone?

Don't forget to create an embassy.

Teutonic Republic Reforms!​

Seven years (ooc: I say seven because I assume mid-turn update is canonically about 2.5 years) after the Black Cross Revolution, the government has begun taking serious steps to create a Republic while still being attached to the Military Order of the Teutonic Knights. The Republic currently installed, admittedly by the current Grand Master, is rather loose. The leader of the Order and State has said himself that he is basically an absolute ruler, as the current senate that was supposed to be working under him is weak. Therefore, the leader of the nation has taken the responsibility of forming a more democratic form of government, as he and other leaders of the Black Cross Revolution had promised the German people they govern.

Under this new government, the people will have a greater say in their leader. In fact, the Grand Master has withheld the title of leader of the nation. Now, the title is limited only to the leader of the Order.

Under the new system, all citizens of the nation vote for a Citizens' Council. This Council, along with the Archbishops and "Hall of Seven", votes for members of Parliament. Parliament then elects the Chancellor to lead the nation from their members. The "Hall of Seven" is made up of seven Generals. These Generals are voted from any Generals who want a seat in the hall by veterans and active duty military personnel. The Grand Master is appointed by the Hall and Chancellor, and must also be a General as well. The Grand Master cannot be a current member of the Hall nor Parliament. The Grand Master acts as the head advisor to the Chancellor and head of the military. In order to run to be a member of Parliament, one must be at least 30 years of age and a citizen with a standard education. It is also required that one must also have had at least two years of military experience.

The Grand Master has decided to name this new government a Unitary Stratocratic Republic.


ooc: I'd like this to be what it says under the kind of government "Teutonia" is, in place of "military republic". I realize it's a bit long for the size of the box, so be free to shorten it as you see fit. Stratocratic Republic works fine if all else fails.

Peace be upon you, nameless Shah of Persia.

The emergence of Persia from the previous anarchy and chaos is indeed a relief. The advent of order in the provinces of Tabriz and Fars is especially welcome to the people inhabiting the border provinces of Baghdad, Mosul and Basra, who can now presumably live in peace, without disturbance from Persian cattle-raiders and brigands. We trust that you shall rein these outlaws in in good time.

However, we are not entirely pleased at the politics of the new state. The open and complete adoption of the dispicable Western notions of "liberalism" and "democracy" (a euphuism for savageness and barbarity) is indeed disturbing. The Caliph, nonetheless, being a representative for God, is tolerant of his neighbours, and will accept this political system, so long as the Shah and his advisory body does not spurn the path of righteousness and reject the word of Mohammed and God.

We expect, with reason, that the leaders of Persia accept the word of the Caliph over ecclesiastical matters without question. This is, however, a two-way commitment. As with other Muslim states, the Caliphate will willingly fund the construction and maintenance of mosques and other religious institutions. We are also hopeful that the Shah should see the wisdom of Shariah law and reinstate it immediately. The rejection of it is very disturbing, and could adversely affect future relations.

Another group appreciative of the restoration of order within Persia is the merchants. Previously, due to the domestic turmoil and high tariffs, it was never profitable to trade in Persia. Now, Arab merchants are clambering to improve the Persian standard of living with exports of incense, wheat, glass, and other commodities. Will you receive them?

Long live the Shah! Long live Persia!

-Caliph Ibrahim II

OOC: Some elements of your history don't make a whole lot of sense, especially the communist coup.

And the name "Iran" hardly has extremist connotations.

OOC: Persia's history does indeed seem to be exceedingly arbitrary, and more a reflection of ones own IRL society and political views as compared to the cultural and historical reality of Persia. Ah well whatever floats your boat, I only hope you don't go completely off the rails and accept the arabian caliph thus completely bypasings the reality of the Sunni-Shia split in Islam, and the traditional rivalry between persian and arabic cultures.

OOC: Well, according to Prospo, there are no Sunnis whatsoever in Persia, so I assumed hat the differences had been reconciled.

Also, it's another twenty years until rails.

OOC: out of context is out of context. Also the fact there are no Sunni's in Persia could easily mean that they are all Shia

Prospo said:

OOC: this work for everyone?

Click to expand...

*GM reserves the right to edit new player's country history in the interest of coherence within the wider game world*

Iran suggests extremist connotations

Click to expand...

It doesn't, but historically Iran was known as Persia until the mid-20th century, so whatever floats your boat.

Edits below.

A group of communists radicals [communists do not exist yet] in Tehran succeeded in murdering the heir apparent.

Click to expand...

The three branches consist of the Judiciary, the Legislative, the State branch. The legislative branch consists of one house of 200 men (or women, both are eligible for office) [Vetoed: highly unlikely for the time period, in Iran, Europe or anywhere else.] each elected via the MMP system.

Click to expand...

The rest I'll allow. Welcome to the game; you can post orders next turn.

Jehoshua said:

I only hope you don't go completely off the rails and accept the arabian caliph thus completely bypasings the reality of the Sunni-Shia split in Islam, and the traditional rivalry between persian and arabic cultures.

Click to expand...

Nasty things will come his way if that happens, I can assure you.

hoplitejoe said:

Only in the west

Click to expand...

Does anywhere else matter?

hoplitejoe said:

Only in the west

Click to expand...

OOC: Of course. Then again, if we're being strict about it, the usage of the word "Iran", even within Iran itself, to refer to a nation-state is itself anachronistic.

OOC: The radical instead of communist thing makes complete sense, and was an oversight on my part, as was the eligibility of women for office.

Also, the fact I had not mention Sunni Islam was due to Sunni's only making up about 4% of the population. Sunni's are also mainly of other ethnicities besides Persian (and there is a difference between the ethnicity of Persian and the nationality of Persian). Since Persian is also the dominant ethnic group, Sunni Islam doesn’t have that great of influence on political affairs

When I first wrote the description an Islamic fundamentalist group was supposed to assassinate the Qajar heir. This group also wished to tell other nations to refer to them as "Iran". The following civil war resulted in the loss of popular support for the name, as it became associated with the splintering of the nation. Sorry that this was not fully explained after I edited it for communists (now radicals). However, I really don't think the name of the country is important. Especially since other countries didn't refer to Persia as Iran until they specifically asked for them to do so.

Also, why would Shi'ites give a damn about a Sunni caliph?

20 hours for orders.

Prospo said:

Also, why would Shi'ites give a damn about a Sunni caliph?

Click to expand...

Well, the Safavid Persians gave a pretty big damn about a Sunni caliph (the Ottoman sultan) a century ago when they were invaded by them. I'd rather not be forced to travel down the same path.